@sarge12 wrote:
@Xistaben2 wrote:
@sarge12 wrote:
@Xistaben2 wrote:The whole argument is pretty subjective in the first place, so it is really hard to draw any moral conclusion.
First thing - Lenders can choose not to extend credit to anyone for any reason. It is not their legal obligation to give someone money whether they have an 850 FICO or a 400. This whole argument regarding 5/24 is just nuts.
Banks and lendors, as well as insurance agencies of all types rarely (if ever) disclose their underwriting criteria. It is just something that they don't want the public to know, nor is it the public's business to know. 5/24 is underwriting criteria plain and simple, it just happened to be figured out by a subset of the credit community through trial and error and data analysis - because of that, we know about it, but that doesn't make it any less underwriting criteria that the lender doesn't have to disclose.
If only we had sure bet analysis on insurance underwriting to know the reasons why rates go up for no reason, insurance companies don't disclose that. People still call in furiously because their rates go up even though they are in excellent standing with no accidents.
Nobody is entitled to credit, period. If someone destroys their credit, they should be denied until they start taking care of it - this is reflected in their credit report until they hit a threshold. Even then, banks blacklist people that burn them with BK's, there is no disclosure of that anywhere on the application page. Truth of the matter is this - people are lashing out because the CSR is very much in the spotlight and they can't get into the action because of 5/24 - a rule that has been confirmed and known by this community and many others for nearly a year now. That is nearly a year (half of the required time lapse) that folks had to plan (by not applying for new accounts) to get under the rule in order to acquire Chase cards they desired. A lot of people willingly chose not to plan for it, and here we are.
Once my two new accounts report, I will be 5/24 and I still need a FU to complete the trifecta, but I won't be able to get it until March - I am perfectly OK with that because I've known the dynamics of the 5/24 rule and have planned accordingly.
Your statement that a lender can choose not to extend credit for any reason is not true. Let a lender refuse to lend to someone because of their race or because they are gay, or jewish and watch what happens.
It's pretty well known that this is a universal constant with any business related activity in this country - are we trying to argue semantics's now? Not sure where you are going with this one other than using an irrelevant fact to try to discredit my unrelated, but valid point.
I agree with almost everything you said actually. Just thought that part was to broad, since the reason for denial must be for financial reasons. That,s all.
I'm not even sure the underlying reason has to be financial. Any underwriter can have a bad day for whatever reason and nitpick a credit report to deny someone credit who otherwise would meet the criteria under the guise of "one too many inquiries" or "sufficient credit extended already."
Hell, in that manner, underwriters could be biased and discriminatory to your point and never emit a decernable pattern for a lawsuit to come around for it. It probably happens more than we want to believe. So maybe your point is relevant, but it would then say that banks can discriminate without being able to prove it.
But I digress.
