topic Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers in SmorgasBoard

Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

designated_knitter — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 12:20:27 GMT

Someone posted on a thread that there are no sub-prime banks... only sub-prime consumers.

Yet, we are often warned when rebuilding to stay away from banks like First Premier and other banks that offer cc to people with low Fico scores because of the high fees and interest and low growth potential. In fact, First Premier is one of the top-performing banks in terms of profits despite the presumed riskier card-holder base.

So I'm curious whether it's the banks (or at least the cc offerings) that are sub-prime... or is the consumer base to which they cater "sub-prime?" Are the business practices employed by thes lenders predatory or an appropriate response to catering to a riskier consumer profile?

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:24:59 GMT

It's a combination of things. Some banks cater to higher-risk, lower-score customers, implying that it's the client base that's subprime. However, the way I see it, the fact that some charge usurious rates and fees is what separates subprime banks from banks that are willing to lend to subprime customers. CapOne will lend across the spectrum but I don't look at them as a subprime bank in that their terms aren't horribly abusing even to the lowest-ranked borrowers (and in the case of Auto Navigator, it can be surprisingly good). Fortiva on the other hand, is a subprime bank through and through, charging 36% APR and you can end up owing 80% of the SL from fees before the card even arrives.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

BearsCubsOtters — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:26:14 GMT

@designated_knitter wrote:
Someone posted on a thread that there are no sub-prime banks... only sub-prime consumers.

Yet, we are often warned when rebuilding to stay away from banks like First Premier and other banks that offer cc to people with low Fico scores because of the high fees and interest and low growth potential. In fact, First Premier is one of the top-performing banks in terms of profits despite the presumed riskier card-holder base.

So I'm curious whether it's the banks (or at least the cc offerings) that are sub-prime... or is the consumer base to which they cater "sub-prime?" Are the business practices employed by thes lenders predatory or an appropriate response to catering to a riskier consumer profile?

My guess is that this thread will probably be moved to Smorgasboard by the mods.

But I would agree that there are banks that cater to sub-prime consumers.

I do not feel that these banks are predatory as they are offering a service to individuals that are going to have to pay higher fees to obtain the credit that they seek. The banks provide all of the terms clearly in the Schumer Box-if the consumer does not read this information then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

It is all about educating oneself. Many people with credit problems are inundated with mailings from banks like First Premier and Credit One touting "unsecured credit" and a lot of them take the bait. These consumers are not dumb or lazy, they just fell for the marketing and did not realize there are other options, such as secured credit cards from larger banks or credit unions.

Hopefully such people will eventually stumble onto forums like this so that we can steer them away from First Premier et. al.

In the end though, these banks are an ends to a means. If a consumer chooses to go with these banks, they can rebuild their credit and eventually cut ties with them.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:52:09 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
It's a combination of things. Some banks cater to higher-risk, lower-score customers, implying that it's the client base that's subprime. However, the way I see it, the fact that some charge usurious rates and fees is what separates subprime banks from banks that are willing to lend to subprime customers. CapOne will lend across the spectrum but I don't look at them as a subprime bank in that their terms aren't horribly abusing even to the lowest-ranked borrowers (and in the case of Auto Navigator, it can be surprisingly good). Fortiva on the other hand, is a subprime bank through and through, charging 36% APR and you can end up owing 80% of the SL from fees before the card even arrives.

Yes. While it is certainly the consumers that are actually subprime (or not), a bank can choose how much of their portfolio is targetted at such consumers. And to some extent that changes over time, we've seen Credit One add some higher level products. Customer diversity has some value for issuers, both to protect financials (so you still have some performing customers in a bad downturn, and can make lots of interest profit when things are good) and to some extent reputation.

This more often comes up with questions about which banks/cards are prime. Which is equally fuzzy, e,g, Chase Freedom and Amex charge cards can sometimes be got with fairly low scores, maybe not quite subprime.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

AverageJoesCredit — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:57:20 GMT

@BearsCubsOtters wrote:
@designated_knitter wrote:
Someone posted on a thread that there are no sub-prime banks... only sub-prime consumers.

Yet, we are often warned when rebuilding to stay away from banks like First Premier and other banks that offer cc to people with low Fico scores because of the high fees and interest and low growth potential. In fact, First Premier is one of the top-performing banks in terms of profits despite the presumed riskier card-holder base.

So I'm curious whether it's the banks (or at least the cc offerings) that are sub-prime... or is the consumer base to which they cater "sub-prime?" Are the business practices employed by thes lenders predatory or an appropriate response to catering to a riskier consumer profile?
My guess is that this thread will probably be moved to Smorgasboard by the mods.

But I would agree that there are banks that cater to sub-prime consumers.

I do not feel that these banks are predatory as they are offering a service to individuals that are going to have to pay higher fees to obtain the credit that they seek. The banks provide all of the terms clearly in the Schumer Box-if the consumer does not read this information then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

It is all about educating oneself. Many people with credit problems are inundated with mailings from banks like First Premier and Credit One touting "unsecured credit" and a lot of them take the bait. These consumers are not dumb or lazy, they just fell for the marketing and did not realize there are other options, such as secured credit cards from larger banks or credit unions.

Hopefully such people will eventually stumble onto forums like this so that we can steer them away from First Premier et. al.

In the end though, these banks are an ends to a means. If a consumer chooses to go with these banks, they can rebuild their credit and eventually cut ties with them.

Banks will always take advantage of people whether through ones desperation, ignorance, or just plain greed. Even people with means, try getting credit one needs if things go south , its always easier to get credit when one doesnt need it then when one actually does. Banks and money are what determines who is subprime or prime lol but thats just my view

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Horseshoez — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:07:21 GMT

@designated_knitter, your thought provoking post did that, it made me think. What I came up with is on a slightly different tangent to the "sub-prime bank vs. sub-prime consumer"...

I'm thinking given how fleeting or dynamic credit scores can be when one's financial picture changes, I'm thinking the question is kind of a chicken and egg scenario, is it the credit product which is sub-prime or the current credit scores which are sub-prime. I say this because many of us have, for many-many years at least, been what I'll call "super-prime" consumers with scores up in the 800s for years, decades even, and then financial hardship happened. Be it the break up of a marriage and the financial ruin that can bring to one or both partners, or a business failure, a risky real estate investment which went south, whatever, suddenly our super-prime consumer has sub-prime scores.

With the above said, and speaking strictly for myself, I consider myself to be a super-prime consumer even though my FICO 8 scores are all in the 666 to 699 range. Why? Prior to my financial world collapsing after the recession, I'd had a very high credit rating since the early 1980s, and have every intention of being back into the upper tier of the credit world by early next year. Will that happen, or is it just my ego/vanity talking? No way to be sure unless and until it happens, but working in my favor is the aging of my Chapter 13, which should fall off my credit reports on or before January 2022, I have good income, my fixed monthly living expenses amount to only about 16% of my income, and even when I factor in normal monthly discretionary spend and retirement contributions, I'm still only burning through about 35% of my monthly cash.

I guess this is all to say, many of us with sub-prime credit scores are, in our minds at least, prime or even super-prime consumers; our job is to convince financial institutions of we are more worthy (is "more worthy" a valid syntactical construct? is "worthier" better?) of higher end credit products than our scores currently indicate.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Horseshoez — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:14:17 GMT

@AverageJoesCredit wrote:
@BearsCubsOtters wrote:
@designated_knitter wrote:
Someone posted on a thread that there are no sub-prime banks... only sub-prime consumers.

Yet, we are often warned when rebuilding to stay away from banks like First Premier and other banks that offer cc to people with low Fico scores because of the high fees and interest and low growth potential. In fact, First Premier is one of the top-performing banks in terms of profits despite the presumed riskier card-holder base.

So I'm curious whether it's the banks (or at least the cc offerings) that are sub-prime... or is the consumer base to which they cater "sub-prime?" Are the business practices employed by thes lenders predatory or an appropriate response to catering to a riskier consumer profile?
My guess is that this thread will probably be moved to Smorgasboard by the mods.

But I would agree that there are banks that cater to sub-prime consumers.

I do not feel that these banks are predatory as they are offering a service to individuals that are going to have to pay higher fees to obtain the credit that they seek. The banks provide all of the terms clearly in the Schumer Box-if the consumer does not read this information then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

It is all about educating oneself. Many people with credit problems are inundated with mailings from banks like First Premier and Credit One touting "unsecured credit" and a lot of them take the bait. These consumers are not dumb or lazy, they just fell for the marketing and did not realize there are other options, such as secured credit cards from larger banks or credit unions.

Hopefully such people will eventually stumble onto forums like this so that we can steer them away from First Premier et. al.

In the end though, these banks are an ends to a means. If a consumer chooses to go with these banks, they can rebuild their credit and eventually cut ties with them.
Banks will always take advantage of people whether through ones desperation, ignorance, or just plain greed. Even people with means, try getting credit one needs if things go south , its always easier to get credit when one doesnt need it then when one actually does. Banks and money are what determines who is subprime or prime lol but thats just my view

I don't have such a negative view of financial institutions, lending institutions are just another business which need to make business decisions on how their particular model will allow them to make money from the money they have; it is incumbent upon them to do so or they will fail. If a particular lender sees profit in lending to those with lower tier credit scores where many/most other lenders will not offer even a dollar of credit, then good for them. Will I patronize such lenders? Heck no. Do I think they bring beneficial products to the market place? Yes.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:19:02 GMT

The lenders themselves aren't sub-prime, but the products they provide to their target demographic can make them perceived as such. As mentioned above, Credit One is an excellent example. The hate for them is strong here, but not many realize that they literally have almost 30 variations of their platinum card, some of which have a grace period, no fees, better rates than prime cards, and rewards. In an attempt to grow their business (and possibly to combat their image), they've started offering better products as well as actively targeting people with better credit.

There's also other lenders such as Goldman and amex that want to tap into the near-prime, or even sub-prime, as there is much opportunity there. That doesn't make them "sub-prime" all of a sudden. Most companies will go where the money is so their business will evolve to reflect that.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

calyx — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:55:16 GMT

A lot of this discussion is why I kind of loathe (and shy away from) the terminology of "sub-prime/prime" (and an even bigger offender, imo: "Tiers") when I define or categorize FIs/cards on the board.

Some people see CapOne as "SubPrime," while some people don't.
One could argue that Disco is "SubPrime" and yet I know ridiculously wealthy folk who live and die by their Disco card because they like their service.

I do believe there are predatory/non-predatory banks. While the majority of banks are going to do what they need to do to make money/profit off of their customers, I think some are definitely overly usurious or predatory.

There are banks that require customers to buy overpriced goods for a credit line, or charge monthly/or really high annual fees to the detriment of higher-risk clients ("subprime" consumers) but there are banks that also charge what I would consider reasonable fees (USBank, Opensky, etc) for those same consumers to hold a secured card, which mitigates risk. But again, that's my personal opinion.

I also don't think that we can rank prime/sub-prime based on customer service, because you'll have just as many opinions on that as there are customers. I think Citi CS is made of ice cream and unicorns - others disagree. I had fantastic interactions every time I called Opensky, but I know that's not true of everyone. I also think that WellsFargo can die a thousand deaths (and that's not enough), but I recognize that's very personal to me; it doesn't make them subprime (although others might disagree).

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Loquat — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 16:05:56 GMT

Subprime vs. Non-subprime just isn't an argument you hear these days outside of forums such as this one. Most big lenders are full spectrum and spread their approvals across a wide range. What you get, the fees you pay, etc is all based on risk.

With most folks having access to the internet these days there's becoming very little excuse for making uneducated decisions. There are websites, forums such as this one, YouTube, etc. If one choose to do business with a lender and don't do their homework first, then one can't claim predatory when they fail to do even the most basic due diligence to educate themselves.

I have no hate for Credit One, First Premier, Indigo or any other lender that is often looked down upon. A person doesn't have to do business with them. There's secured cards, most credit unions offer ways to help build/rebuild your credit via secured loans or their own version of a secured card.

The list of excuses used for making bad financial decisions these days are getting smaller and smaller.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Remedios — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:00:01 GMT

*sub-prime* isnt a measure of someone's character, it's used to describe risk assessment associated with the loan lender issues.

In a nutshell, it's a measure on how far someone is from being approved at prime rates and terms.

*sub* might sound negative, but the alternatives are "under-prime", "below-prime", "not ideal".

No matter which adjective is used, it's going to sound negative.

I think predatory lending and meaning of sub-prime are being convoluted here.

Lets use Credit One as an example...standard offer is low SL, AF, monthly fee, no grace period, that's pretty close to predatory lending.

Different offer, same lender, rewards, no AF, no fees, has grace period.

What's different, the consumer.

At the opposite end of spectrum one can be extra mega super duper prime consumer and not be able to get approved for credit one because they simply cannot stop applying. Been there, done that.

Some of my cards, while they have great SLs, they also have APRs close to payday loans. That's the part of risk assessment.

My APRs do not offend me because they are direct result of my actions.

My scores and classification mean nothing to Chase, my score could be 850000 and I'd still get denied because 5/24.

Cards like credit one, indigo, open sky are necessary for consumers at that stage of their credit life. It's wonderful to celebrate when they are closed, but in my personal opinion " I closed that junk, I dont need it" impacts those who still do.

A bit more reflection on how good it felt to be approved for anything should be included as encouragement for those who still need that "junk" or would be grateful for "junk".

Rebuilding is like clawing your way through concrete, no matter where you turn, you're hitting a wall. It's hard, frustrating, and at times it can be obsessive. Credit becomes main focus in life, therefore all things credit related become personal, even descriptions.

Going from *deep sub-prime* to *prime* isnt negative, it's like climbing mountain. You start at the bottom, and you claim victory when you reach your goal, whatever the goal might be.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

designated_knitter — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:30:56 GMT

I see the word "demographics" used throughout this thread.

Usually, demographic is used to refer to classifying people by age, race, gender, religeon.

There are definitely credit cards that do cater to demographics such as cards targeted at students, or AARP which is targeted at us old folks.

While I agree that there is a lot of information out there regarding the predatory lending practices of banks like First Premier etc, I think it is naive to expect that everyone has the time and resources to sift through all the (often-conflicting) information on the internet when they need credit. Take YouTube, as an example... there are probably YouTubers that shill for predatory lenders and if one just happens to hit one of those videos that is a proponent of First Premier etc then they will feel like they have done their "due diligence". How many times has it been said on the forums that you shouldn't trust what you see on YouTube. Yet, not everyone is going to be comfortable diving into the world of Fico Forums (we are an odd self-selected bunch!). While the forums try to be inviting and inclusive, I also see many posts directed at new users that are less than welcoming because it is assumed they have a basic level of knowledge.

In addition, if one needs a credit card, one may not have the money at hand to put down for security deposits. Secured cards take longer to set up because banks will put 10-day holds on the deposit just to ensure that the payment doesn't bounce. And even a lot of FI that offer secured cards will not approve people with scores below 600. I was denied a secured Discover card several times and it wasn't until my scores were over 600 when I finally was approved for one. My local CU doesn't offer rebuilder cards or secured cards and they tend to be conservative. Even people that you would consider "financially saavy" (like my sisters who have degrees in economics and BILs who have advanced degrees in accounting or law) have never even heard of NFCU -- much less considered themselves eligible. Same with Penfed.

When you are busy trying to keep your head above water because you have kids to take care of, full-time jobs, taking care of a house hold, taking care of aging parents, keeping your aging used car running, AND trying to keep from getting Covid and staying healthy, spending hours pouring over Megathreads here in the forums is luxury many can't afford -- particularly if the brakes on their car need to be replaced so they can continue their DoorDash gig. I even saw someone ask a question about Navy in the credit application forum and they told to read through the VERY LONG Navy megathread. It's one thing to tell people to educate themselves... it is another thing to expect them to devote several hours over the course of several days just to find that the megathread didn't answer their specific question.

Let's take kids building credit as an example. Kids are told that they need credit cards (or maybe they've decided that they want one). They apply for one of the big-boy banks because that's what they see on TV and are denied because they don't have a credit score. At this point they're thinking "how do I get a credit score if you won't give me a credit card"... so then they start going on an app spree starting with the cards that constantly advertise on TV, they incur hard pull after hard pull not realizing that's a bad thing. That starts the "death spiral" until they finally get to First Premier (who also advertises aggressively on the internet) who does give them a chance. So they get a First Premier card and start using it because they don't realize that utilization is a major hit as well. They're students who have to buy college books (often 300 to 500 per semester) and they can't afford to PIF and pay the minimums. The death spiral continues so that when they FINALLY get their first credit score, it is in the 500s. They are starting out in sub-prime territory.

This isn't a far-fetched scenario. My son is getting his PhD in Physics... he's probably the smartest person I know... but financial stuff is greek to him (well, actually worse because he actually knows greek AND Latin!). He's intimidated by it. He doesn't have the time or inclination to spend hours here reading how to "do it right". *IF* it wasn't for the fact that I have been spending the equivalent of a part-time job reading these boards, he could have easily found himself down that rabbit hole. His dad (who is a physician and again, literally Mensa material) doesn't even understand FICO basics -- and in fact, would counsel my son that credit is cancer and to be avoided at all costs... until my son needs to rent an apartment but can't because he doesn't have a credit score... or he needs to get auto insurance and winds up paying through the nose because again, no credit score.

We are a very SMALL self-selected community that has made credit our avocation (or, for some, there vocation) either out of necessity (because we realized we couldn't survive without a decent credit score) or desire (because we enjoy the thrill of the hunt!). To expect that the other 99 percent of the universe has the time and energy to do what we do here is unrealistic.

Sorry for the very long post.

As I said in my OP, I was primarily interested in the application of "sub-prime" to human beings. As I said in another thread... to refer to us as sub-prime consumers makes it seem that we are less worthy of respect and of less worth as a human being (and I'm not talking about financial worth). Those of us who are not blessed with 750+ fico scores still are inherently good people who work hard, raise our families, need to take care of our homes just like everyone else. To me, the phrase: "sub-prime consumer" seems like a label that is a form of credit shaming.

However, since many people here have referred to people as "sub-prime consumers" it would appear that I am the only one that feels this way.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

designated_knitter — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:08:21 GMT

@Remedios wrote:
*sub-prime* isnt a measure of someone's character, it's used to describe risk assessment associated with the loan lender issues.
In a nutshell, it's a measure on how far someone is from being approved at prime rates and terms.

*sub* might sound negative, but the alternatives are "under-prime", "below-prime", "not ideal".
No matter which adjective is used, it's going to sound negative.

I would agree with this if there hadn't been a statement posted that there are no sub-prime banks... only sub-prime consumers. So if we are unwilling to attach a lable of "sub-prime" to a financial institution, then aren't actual people deserving of the same consideration?

In terms of alternative labels... "credit-challenged"? "Underbanked" is a perfectly appropriate term but is generally thought of in the context of deposit accounts. "Rebuilding" or "Building" are also very reasonable terms. As you pointed out later in your post (sorry, I got edit happy), building credit is like crawling out of a hole... and maybe if someone is standing in a hole, it may be accurate to refer to them as "sub-terranians", that has a conotation that goes far beyond simply where they are standing relative to their proximity to ground level. Even referring to people who live in basement apartments as "basement dwellers" is considered an insult. The infamous quote about hackers being a "400 pound guy living in his mom's basement"... doesn't exactly conjure up positive feelings about that person's worth as a human being... nor was it intended to... it was intended (and succeeded) at being a pejoritive phrase.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Horseshoez — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:08:09 GMT

@designated_knitter, there are no Kudos in this SmorgasBoard arena, so, in lieu of a "Thumbs up", how about, "Well said!".

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

designated_knitter — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:28:23 GMT

@Horseshoez

Psssshaw! Twern't nuthin!

I just hope that no one was attempting to operate heavy machinery while reading my posts... extreme drowsiness most certainly would have occured

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Horseshoez — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:55:27 GMT

@designated_knitter wrote:
@Horseshoez

Psssshaw! Twern't nuthin!

I just hope that no one was attempting to operate heavy machinery while reading my posts... extreme drowsiness most certainly would have occured

LOL, and I thought I was drowsy because I just finished a 6.5 mile trail run on a very humid 90° day.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:55:50 GMT

You're looking too deep into it and taking offense to something that wasn't intended to offend anyone. It's just a term. Sub-prime means below prime. Nothing more. You could replace the term to one that isn't deemed offensive today, but it may be tomorrow. Personally, I feel terms like "underbanked" and "credit-challenged" are more hurtful than a prefix denoting a range on a scale.

As for demographics, it's just the breaking up of population based on a set criteria whether it's race, age, gender, whatever. In the case of finance it's scores, income, AAoA, etc. Another situation where perception changes it's meaning to each person.

In regards to the Navy thread, why do you think we reboot it? You're not the only person to have noticed those types of comments. I've been pushing for the reboot for months based on those same comments and situations. It's why the first post is being kept up to date with the most common, and data backed info; to keep people from digging through 1000 pages to get an answer. It's also why we've attempted to keep it as clutter-free as possible.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

designated_knitter — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:55:29 GMT

@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
You're looking too deep into it and taking offense to something that wasn't intended to offend anyone. It's just a term. Sub-prime means below prime. Nothing more. You could replace the term to one that isn't deemed offensive today, but it may be tomorrow. Personally, I feel terms like "underbanked" and "credit-challenged" are more hurtful than a prefix denoting a range on a scale.

As for demographics, it's just the breaking up of population based on a set criteria whether it's race, age, gender, whatever. In the case of finance it's scores, income, AAoA, etc. Another situation where perception changes it's meaning to each person.

In regards to the Navy thread, why do you think we reboot it? You're not the only person to have noticed those types of comments. I've been pushing for the reboot for months based on those same comments and situations. It's why the first post is being kept up to date with the most common, and data backed info; to keep people from digging through 1000 pages to get an answer. It's also why we've attempted to keep it as clutter-free as possible.

I think you're getting to defensive about my comment with regards to the navy thread.

(That last statement was for illustrative purposes only. When it comes to communication, I don't think it is wise to be the arbiter of whether someone should take offense or not. I certainly did not mean to offense when I made the comment about being redirected to the Navy mega thread but as the "keeper of the thread " I can understand where you might feel defensive.)

I hope I'm not violating TOS by disagreeing or questioning with several members on this thread. Again, I'm trying to have a discussion here. I'm explaining how I feel. I own these feelings however to tell someone they shouldn't feel a certain way is, in my humble opinion, disrespectful.

As I said, if it is wrong to attach a label to a business based on their business model because it may reflect poorly on that business, then customers deserve the sam(if not more) consideration. I realize that courts have ruled that businesses are people too... but frankly, I doubt the CEO of First Premier isn't going to be all offended.... but I could be wrong. If he is, I sincerely apologize as that was not my intention.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

FinStar — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:04:44 GMT

@designated_knitter wrote:
I see the word "demographics" used throughout this thread.

Usually, demographic is used to refer to classifying people by age, race, gender, religeon.

There are definitely credit cards that do cater to demographics such as cards targeted at students, or AARP which is targeted at us old folks.

...

As I said in my OP, I was primarily interested in the application of "sub-prime" to human beings. As I said in another thread... to refer to us as sub-prime consumers makes it seem that we are less worthy of respect and of less worth as a human being (and I'm not talking about financial worth). Those of us who are not blessed with 750+ fico scores still are inherently good people who work hard, raise our families, need to take care of our homes just like everyone else. To me, the phrase: "sub-prime consumer" seems like a label that is a form of credit shaming.

However, since many people here have referred to people as "sub-prime consumers" it would appear that I am the only one that feels this way.

Unfortunately, when it comes to demographics, financial services entities have a much broader spectrum analysis than those you mentioned above. So, it clearly goes beyond specific sectors of any population. You'd be very suprised how much demographic data is known about you by all financial service entities and how much is shared amongst them, to the extent permissible by specific regulations.

Also, no one here is calling you "prime" or "sub-prime." You are giving this specific characterist a lot of weight where it shouldn't be. I mean, do you sit with your friends or family members during casual interactions and refer to each other as "prime" or "sub-prime" in general conversations? I would bet the answer is no.

The bottom line, a person (i.e. human being) can be called many things. You are empowered to go beyond the 'stigma' and letting any terminology, characteristic or label define you or your character -- that would speak volumes for anyone. The financial services industry has created specific entities, services and/or products as a source of revenue and in the process created their own terminology to define specific sectors of a population that fit a category or market demographic (sub-prime or otherwise) based on your overall financial and/or credit profile. Secured products exist for a reason, so do products that are well-known by First Premier, OpenSky, Credit One, etc. That said, it doesn't stop any of the major players into taking a slice of that market share by offering similar products or services that also produce a revenue stream.

Re: Sub-prime banks or sub-prime consumers

SOGGIE — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:32:44 GMT

IMO, there are lending institutions that offer subprime products. I would never refer to a consumer (human) as "subprime." 🤐