Secret Banker Handshakes. Modified now to Secret Elbow Bumps or something Pandemic Appropriate.
The conspiracy theory that user intention matters, or "non-response" to a 4506-t request is a Thing is what I am ridiculing.
Banks can only work on data. If the bank does not get the data requested, such as a 4506-t, then adverse action may be taken by that bank. Using this as a generally shared shaming of a cardholder is illegal and wastes the bank's time. It also gives valuable info to another bank, for no benefit to the first bank. If the bank does not like the borrower, just get rid of the borrower.
The theory of "non-response to 4506-t" would be better applied to blacklist persons who had actual charge offs with any bank, not just this bank.
@longtimelurker wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:Secret Banker Handshakes. Modified now to Secret Elbow Bumps or something Pandemic Appropriate.
The conspiracy theory that user intention matters, or "non-response" to a 4506-t request is a Thing is what I am ridiculing.
Banks can only work on data. If the bank does not get the data requested, such as a 4506-t, then adverse action may be taken by that bank. Using this as a generally shared shaming of a cardholder is illegal and wastes the bank's time. It also gives valuable info to another bank, for no benefit to the first bank. If the bank does not like the borrower, just get rid of the borrower.
The theory of "non-response to 4506-t" would be better applied to blacklist persons who had actual charge offs with any bank, not just this bank.
Why doesn't that logic apply to the "shared shaming" of a 30-day late for example?
It's already in the FICO score? Does get included in credit decisions and the conspiracy would be if a bank blacklists for a late, recorded in score, which the customer has on a different bank. Lates are data, charge offs are data, which do affect score.
@RadioRob wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:
@longtimelurker wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Yeah, heavily considering just closing the account. :/ Thank you for the input.
Hoping that the answer is "No" but do issuers record such refusals somewhere that other issuers can see, such as LexusNexis or one of the smaller CRAs? As an issuer, I would consider refusing to verify income in such as a way as a possible red flag.
Each bank assigns someone to lurk MyFICO, and draw conclusions about their cardholders based on comments here.
#SarcasticI don't work for a bank directly, but a large number of bank cyber security teams are my customers. I know for a fact this forum, and others like FlyerTalk are monitored. I was in a conference room at a financial instutition in Charlotte once and a post from this forum was on the screen when I walked into the room. (It was a topic for the meeting before mine which had nothing to do with it.)
The proposition of the thread is that "individual cardholders get tagged by multiple banks if they refuse income verification for one bank". There is simply no way for banks to use the forums to get to an individual cardholder to make this determination.
I fully agree that certain departments in banks very likely refer to MF and FT to get a pulse of how consumers percieve their products, and the benefits / restrictions rolled out by various banks. That can only be at an aggregate level, however, and does not apply directly to how a bank will percieve a specific customer.
@longtimelurker wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:
@longtimelurker wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:Secret Banker Handshakes. Modified now to Secret Elbow Bumps or something Pandemic Appropriate.
The conspiracy theory that user intention matters, or "non-response" to a 4506-t request is a Thing is what I am ridiculing.
Banks can only work on data. If the bank does not get the data requested, such as a 4506-t, then adverse action may be taken by that bank. Using this as a generally shared shaming of a cardholder is illegal and wastes the bank's time. It also gives valuable info to another bank, for no benefit to the first bank. If the bank does not like the borrower, just get rid of the borrower.
The theory of "non-response to 4506-t" would be better applied to blacklist persons who had actual charge offs with any bank, not just this bank.
Why doesn't that logic apply to the "shared shaming" of a 30-day late for example?
It's already in the FICO score? Does get included in credit decisions and the conspiracy would be if a bank blacklists for a late, recorded in score, which the customer has on a different bank. Lates are data, charge offs are data, which do affect score.
You may well be right for other reasons, but I don't see much of a difference. The whole value proposition behind a score is presumably a collective one, if issuer one reports their experiences for others to use, and others do the same, everyone gains.
After all, I know the borrower X, in my cards, has a 30 day late and a so-so repayment history,so I will react to their CLI and new account requests with that in mind. Why should I share? In your words: "It also gives valuable info to another bank, for no benefit to the first bank. If the bank does not like the borrower, just get rid of the borrower. " So to me, saying "this guy is cagey about income verification" is more of the same, unless that is, as you say, illegal.
The information shared to credit bureaus is the standardized borrowing and payment activity of the cardholder. From there, that information is fed into the proprietary scoring models, to arrive at a risk factor rating.
Your original suggestion was there is a secret location where additional information about interactions with cardholders is shared among banks, information not part of the data of borrowings and payments. There is no secret layer of communication between banks about "other information" about consumers. A particular bank may use that information internally in their algorithms, but this is a competitive business.