Penfed is on to us. They do not like AU's or backdating.

[Walt_K]

---

@cdtotten wrote:

I have read through this thread and although I understand your frustration with PENFED, I do believe they are consistent with their stance on credit in denying her. She has a very short credit history, with only 1 CC and a couple joint car loans to speak of. This is very limited for someone seeking a CL with a conservative lender. AU accounts are great for bumping the score up for auto-approvals on certain products, but ultimately it is not a card that she is responsible for, and not a card that she was approved for and truly shouldn't be included under a manual recon, as it wasn't in this case. Once she has built up her own profile, then she will do much better.

That being said, this is the first time i have heard of a lender specifically mentioning the exclusion of AU accounts. I also am surprised they noticed her age compared to the TL age. It's refreshing to see a lender actually review a file and make a decision.

---

I didn't read this post as the OP being all that frustrated with PenFed.  I read it more as a heads up to others that they don't count AUs and backdating when considering an application.  May'be I'd quibble with the subject line of the post and say that there's nothing to say they don't like it.  They just don't consider it.  I doubt that the OP's wife's application was considered in a more negative light becuase of the AU accounts and the backdating (the backdating isn't even under your control, it's just Amex's reporting policy).  Notwithstanding the CSR's comment that he was gaming the system which I just take as unfortunate word choice, I imagine they reviewed her app like any other person with 3 years of credit history.  Apparently that's not enough for them.   

[Anonymous]

---

@Walt_K wrote:

---

@cdtotten wrote:

I have read through this thread and although I understand your frustration with PENFED, I do believe they are consistent with their stance on credit in denying her. She has a very short credit history, with only 1 CC and a couple joint car loans to speak of. This is very limited for someone seeking a CL with a conservative lender. AU accounts are great for bumping the score up for auto-approvals on certain products, but ultimately it is not a card that she is responsible for, and not a card that she was approved for and truly shouldn't be included under a manual recon, as it wasn't in this case. Once she has built up her own profile, then she will do much better.

That being said, this is the first time i have heard of a lender specifically mentioning the exclusion of AU accounts. I also am surprised they noticed her age compared to the TL age. It's refreshing to see a lender actually review a file and make a decision.

---

I didn't read this post as the OP being all that frustrated with PenFed.  I read it more as a heads up to others that they don't count AUs and backdating when considering an application.  May'be I'd quibble with the subject line of the post and say that there's nothing to say they don't like it.  They just don't consider it.  I doubt that the OP's wife's application was considered in a more negative light becuase of the AU accounts and the backdating (the backdating isn't even under your control, it's just Amex's reporting policy).  Notwithstanding the CSR's comment that he was gaming the system which I just take as unfortunate word choice, I imagine they reviewed her app like any other person with 3 years of credit history.  Apparently that's not enough for them.   

---

Exactly!

I do not see how an instant credit history using AU status shows creditworthiness.  That other lenders don't usually care is irrelevant.  PenFed does care and it's their call to make. 

[Anonymous]

---

@haiti222 wrote:

Because she is your wife, and they made the remark about her age, I believe they may have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which was passed to make sure both married and unmarried women could get credit in their own name, particularly both single women and non-full time working wives. 

Pay close attention to section II in the government website about the act:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm

According to the FTC, the fact she is of age to write contracts means age should not be used against her. Penfed admitted they did use age against her, as they considered it "working the system" because she would have been "nine years old." This discrimination was common 40 years ago when the act was passed; that a much younger wife should not be allowed to get credit based upon the shared resources of the married household.

Spouses are still allowed to be authorized users, and I believe AU accounts for spouses are included in FICO, partially because of the ECOA.  Thus, it is not working the system, but a factor required by the ECOA to allow spouses equal access to credit.

I would consider doing as the website suggests, perhaps follow-up to the CEO citing the act, with a copy to the NCUA and your local attorney general, as well as the AG in Penfed's home state. 

The harsher economic conditions have caused tougher lending standards. There seem to be more violations (at least technical ones) of the ECOA, a law which seemed settled in the past. In attempting to weed out fraud, etc., banks seems to be getting closer to the line on the ECOA. 

---

No ECOA violations here.

Physical age here is not the issue.  The 9 years refers to age of credit history.

[thrasher865]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@haiti222 wrote:

Because she is your wife, and they made the remark about her age, I believe they may have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which was passed to make sure both married and unmarried women could get credit in their own name, particularly both single women and non-full time working wives. 

Pay close attention to section II in the government website about the act:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm

According to the FTC, the fact she is of age to write contracts means age should not be used against her. Penfed admitted they did use age against her, as they considered it "working the system" because she would have been "nine years old." This discrimination was common 40 years ago when the act was passed; that a much younger wife should not be allowed to get credit based upon the shared resources of the married household.

Spouses are still allowed to be authorized users, and I believe AU accounts for spouses are included in FICO, partially because of the ECOA.  Thus, it is not working the system, but a factor required by the ECOA to allow spouses equal access to credit.

I would consider doing as the website suggests, perhaps follow-up to the CEO citing the act, with a copy to the NCUA and your local attorney general, as well as the AG in Penfed's home state. 

The harsher economic conditions have caused tougher lending standards. There seem to be more violations (at least technical ones) of the ECOA, a law which seemed settled in the past. In attempting to weed out fraud, etc., banks seems to be getting closer to the line on the ECOA. 

---

No ECOA violations here.

Physical age here is not the issue.  The 9 years refers to age of credit history.

---

First of all, no, the 9 years was referring to the OP's wife's age at the time the account was opened.

Second of all, I agree, there are definitely no violations, because it was not stated as a reason of denial.  The reason for denial was lack of established credit history for herself.  The 9 years old was only a means of verifying that the account could not have been hers for that time frame.  Calling it a violation of the ECOA was a stretch.

[Anonymous]

---

@thrasher865 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@haiti222 wrote:

Because she is your wife, and they made the remark about her age, I believe they may have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which was passed to make sure both married and unmarried women could get credit in their own name, particularly both single women and non-full time working wives. 

Pay close attention to section II in the government website about the act:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm

According to the FTC, the fact she is of age to write contracts means age should not be used against her. Penfed admitted they did use age against her, as they considered it "working the system" because she would have been "nine years old." This discrimination was common 40 years ago when the act was passed; that a much younger wife should not be allowed to get credit based upon the shared resources of the married household.

Spouses are still allowed to be authorized users, and I believe AU accounts for spouses are included in FICO, partially because of the ECOA.  Thus, it is not working the system, but a factor required by the ECOA to allow spouses equal access to credit.

I would consider doing as the website suggests, perhaps follow-up to the CEO citing the act, with a copy to the NCUA and your local attorney general, as well as the AG in Penfed's home state. 

The harsher economic conditions have caused tougher lending standards. There seem to be more violations (at least technical ones) of the ECOA, a law which seemed settled in the past. In attempting to weed out fraud, etc., banks seems to be getting closer to the line on the ECOA. 

---

No ECOA violations here.

Physical age here is not the issue.  The 9 years refers to age of credit history.

---

First of all, no, the 9 years was referring to the OP's wife's age at the time the account was opened.

Second of all, I agree, there are definitely no violations, because it was not stated as a reason of denial.  The reason for denial was lack of established credit history for herself.  The 9 years old was only a means of verifying that the account could not have been hers for that time frame.  Calling it a violation of the ECOA was a stretch.

---

You're right.

In any event, no ECOA violations at all.

[haiti222]

If one was looking to review such conduct (regulatory agency) or in litigation, one would look beyond the stated reasons for a denial and look at both the actions and the informal words stated to help determine the conduct of the institution. This type of informal conduct was a primary reason why the ECOA act was passed about 40 years ago.

For example, this thread about the new FICO 8 score indicates that Fair Issac could not just eliminate the FICO effect for all authorized user cards because of the ECOA for spouses, in particular. 

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Fico-is-on-to-piggybacking/m-p/882854#M257136

Comments about the ECOA and its lack of applicability have been made each time this matter has come up for discussion. It seems to be the ECOA, passed in another time, does not fit well with the times of today. Nonetheless, there continues to be legal risk to those institutions that ignore it for spouses. That seems to be why Fair Issac is giving FICO credit to spouses that are authorized users. Financial institutions should do the same, and not make remarks that indicate that their actual thought process in approving credit is violative of such. An institution using credit analysts rather than a computer is most at risk. Since more institutions are using actual human analysis because of the tougher credit enviroment,  an ECOA violation claim is likely against such a financial institution in the near future.

[Anonymous]

---

@haiti222 wrote:

If one was looking to review such conduct (regulatory agency) or in litigation, one would look beyond the stated reasons for a denial and look at both the actions and the informal words stated to help determine the conduct of the institution. This type of informal conduct was a primary reason why the ECOA act was passed about 40 years ago.

For example, this thread about the new FICO 8 score indicates that Fair Issac could not just eliminate the FICO effect for all authorized user cards because of the ECOA for spouses, in particular. 

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Fico-is-on-to-piggybacking/m-p/882854#M257136

Comments about the ECOA and its lack of applicability have been made each time this matter has come up for discussion. It seems to be the ECOA, passed in another time, does not fit well with the times of today. Nonetheless, there continues to be legal risk to those institutions that ignore it for spouses. That seems to be why Fair Issac is giving FICO credit to spouses that are authorized users. Financial institutions should do the same, and not make remarks that indicate that their actual thought process in approving credit is violative of such. An institution using credit analysts rather than a computer is most at risk. Since more institutions are using actual human analysis because of the tougher credit enviroment,  an ECOA violation claim is likely against such a financial institution in the near future.

---

While there may be ECOA concerns with reporting AUs, in OPs case there are no ECOA violations, period.  PenFed does not have to consider an account you had when you were 9 years old -- a time when you were not even of legal age to enter into a contract. 

[Anonymous]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

What did or didn't cause the financial meltdown really has nothing to do with the fact that PenFed did not take into account AU's in this situation.

That's what the discussion needs to focus on.

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".

---

Penfed has always scrutinized credit files like this. A FICO score and the tricks people play with their files matter less to penfed than the actual content of the file.

Besides, the whole authorized user thing being calculated into the FICO score has always baffled me. I never understood how that was an accurate predictor of risk. 

Like I said over two years ago: FICO score by itself is becoming less relevant than the meat and potatoes of your credit file.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

What did or didn't cause the financial meltdown really has nothing to do with the fact that PenFed did not take into account AU's in this situation.

That's what the discussion needs to focus on.

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".

---

Penfed has always scrutinized credit files like this. A FICO score and the tricks people play with their files matter less to penfed than the actual content of the file.

Besides, the whole authorized user thing being calculated into the FICO score has always baffled me. I never understood how that was an accurate predictor of risk. 

Like I said over two years ago: FICO score by itself is becoming less relevant than the meat and potatoes of your credit file.

---

+1 in that I don't think any lender goes only by FICO score. 

I can, however, see the relevance / value of AU experience for members of one's family. 

[Anonymous]

Odd, I have only one card a $200 cap1 card, and am AU on my FIL's AMEX from 10 years ago, and FICO is 770 and was approved yesterday for 20k PENFED.  All I had to do was prove income.