New FICO08

[Anonymous]

Ouch.

I think we should find an antique mall that has a tea room, go in for lunch for some finger sandwiches, and contemplate going shoe shopping

[Anonymous]

OCs have been urinating and lamentating about piggybacking while not even remotely bothering to try and discern how widespread the "problem" truly is. But, they really don't wanna know how widespread the problem is. Could be 1 percent of the AU accounts. Could be 99 percent of the AU accounts. It really doesn't matter. They just want it stopped because elimination of AUs in FICO scoring accomplishes one and only one thing--it lowers the FICO scores of millions of people. Period.

End of the day, more subprimes means more happy OCs.

Someone please refresh my memory. Who exactly is it that reports AU accounts to the CRAs? Oh, that's right. The OCs report AU accounts to the CRAs. But, how can that be? I mean, they're reporting, so why don't they just stop reporting if all this piggybacking is afoot?

Well, you see, if they stopped reporting AU accounts, what would be the point of sicking the CA attack dogs on AUs to try and get money the AU doesn't owe if the card holder defaults. So long as the OCs keep reporting AU accounts, good or bad, part of the FICO score or not, long after FICO08 goes into effect (whenever that may be), the CAs have a pressure point they can apply to try and get money that ain't owed from AUs.

Now a knowledge AU will know to leave well enough alone and not touch a positive TL, AU or otherwise, and if the account ever goes into default (ex spouse's CC, parent's CC, or whatever), the AU will tell the CA to get stuffed (or if they listen to me they'll DV the CA and let the CA try to hang themselves in yet another violation of law), and then dispute the AU TL with the CRAs to make it go bye-bye.

But, how many knowledgeable AUs are out there? Probably not many. Maybe 1 in a 100, if that. Probably more like 1 in 10,000 or even 1 in 100,000

There's a whole lotta CA money yet to be made in AU reporting.

[haulingthescoreup]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I can see where you are coming from HTSU, but my whole argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not the AU has earned the right to get the perks from the credit boost it is that that person should be held accountable for that debt.

In your argument, you state that the unemployed spouse has earned that credit history but where is the accountability? If the "household" goes belly-up, shouldn't both parties be held responsible?

I have to admit, I felt a little offended that you would assume I (as a young woman) did not appreciate what my foremothers did for me in terms of the rights and privaleges I have today. With that being said, I would hope that you would appreciate the fact that I, who works full time, goes to school part time, and raises a 9 month old by myself would be a little perturbed at the fact that there are people out there mooching (not everyone but you know what I mean) off their SO's, parents' credit histories.

I might have a measely score but I da** sure earned it myself!

---

I apologize for offending. Maybe we can cancel out? I often feel stuck in the middle, defending to my mother's generation my choice to go back to work, and explaining the necessity of working for most women nowadays, and then defending to the next generation along that what stay-at-home wives and mothers did was important and valuable. One foot in each world!

I completely agree about the mooching by total strangers and also by young people off their parents' credit. AU status for kids is great, if it is used to give young people (as in high schoolers) practice in learning to manage credit, so that they don't blow the chances when they get their own cards. There is no reason that they need to get credit from their parents. They start out with a perfectly good figure and the opportunity to get good introductory cards, especially if they are students, and build their own. Neither DH nor I were AU's on our parents' cards, and none of our three kids were or are AU's on ours. But it is not mooching to give credit to the at-home spouse. If our household had gone belly-up, I can assure you that I would be have been equally responsible and accountable for keeping that card currently paid. It was wrong to treat single parents as second-class citizens, as was done until so very recently (and sometimes still is done), and it is wrong to treat at-home spouses as if they had no role in managing the family credit card. I suppose if we had all known 20 or 30 years ago how attitudes would change, we would have all had joint status from the get-go. Without a time machine, there's not a lot we can do about it now.

Congratulations on your 9-month-old, who I'm sure is the joy of your life! I had three kids in 4 1/2 years, and for years, DH traveled for 16 days and was then home for 5. I was a part-time student during that time, but my brain turned quickly to goo, and I put it on hold until they got older. I really do admire you for what you're pulling off. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint!

[Dawn]

---

MeganML84 wrote:

I can see where you are coming from HTSU, but my whole argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not the AU has earned the right to get the perks from the credit boost it is that that person should be held accountable for that debt.

In your argument, you state that the unemployed spouse has earned that credit history but where is the accountability? If the "household" goes belly-up, shouldn't both parties be held responsible?

---

I live in a community property state.  Although I hope I never have to find out exactly how the community property legalities would work out in the event of divorce or my DHs death, it is my understanding that whether or not I am a joint holder, authorized user, or not on an account of my DH's at all ... I will still be accountable for debts incurred during our marriage. 

Considering that take on things, I will make certain that I protect both my credit as well as his and not feel badly at all about benefiting from a credit history that is based upon his income alone, but my management of the household and financial affairs.

[Anonymous]

---

denbar2003 wrote:

I live in a community property state.  Although I hope I never have to find out exactly how the community property legalities would work out in the event of divorce or my DHs death, it is my understanding that whether or not I am a joint holder, authorized user, or not on an account of my DH's at all ... I will still be accountable for debts incurred during our marriage. 

---

I too live in a community property state. While I also hope to never find out the details, my understanding of the laws are that you are correct. Whether you're a joint account holder, AU, or not on the account at all, if a debt was "conceived within the marital community", then you're on the hook for it.

Smartest thing to do, in case of divorce, whether a community property state or not, have your lawyer insist that all debts, everything, no stone left unturned, get closed out and refinanced.

For the house, quit claim deed and the one keeping the house will refi and pay out half the equity to the one being taken off the deed.

For cars, refi. If you're keeping it, refi and put it in your name. Otherwise sell it and split the proceeds.

For CCs, open individual CC accounts, BTs the balances to the new individual CCs, and close the CCs that were opened during or before the marriage. You might loose some credit history FICO luv, but I think that's a worthwhile trade-off given the huge number of folks who come here or elsewhere having been through a divorce where the other spouse defaulted on something and now they are fighting to get it off their CRs.

[Anonymous]

haulingthescoreup wrote:

I apologize for offending. Maybe we can cancel out? I often feel stuck in the middle, defending to my mother's generation my choice to go back to work, and explaining the necessity of working for most women nowadays, and then defending to the next generation along that what stay-at-home wives and mothers did was important and valuable. One foot in each world!

I completely agree about the mooching by total strangers and also by young people off their parents' credit. AU status for kids is great, if it is used to give young people (as in high schoolers) practice in learning to manage credit, so that they don't blow the chances when they get their own cards. There is no reason that they need to get credit from their parents. They start out with a perfectly good figure and the opportunity to get good introductory cards, especially if they are students, and build their own. Neither DH nor I were AU's on our parents' cards, and none of our three kids were or are AU's on ours. But it is not mooching to give credit to the at-home spouse. If our household had gone belly-up, I can assure you that I would be have been equally responsible and accountable for keeping that card currently paid. It was wrong to treat single parents as second-class citizens, as was done until so very recently (and sometimes still is done), and it is wrong to treat at-home spouses as if they had no role in managing the family credit card. I suppose if we had all known 20 or 30 years ago how attitudes would change, we would have all had joint status from the get-go. Without a time machine, there's not a lot we can do about it now.

Congratulations on your 9-month-old, who I'm sure is the joy of your life! I had three kids in 4 1/2 years, and for years, DH traveled for 16 days and was then home for 5. I was a part-time student during that time, but my brain turned quickly to goo, and I put it on hold until they got older. I really do admire you for what you're pulling off. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint!

No apologies necessary. I understand where you are coming from too. I do not know how it feels to be a SAHM and run a household, and I imagine it is as difficult as being a working mom, (ahh, that never--ending battle between the SAHMs and the working moms ) or a single mom, etc...

I agree if everyone had known then what we know now things would have been done completely different--just like if we knew now what we will know in the next 30 years, we may not be doing the same things.

I do feel bad that the people out there who should deserve recognition for good past credit are going to be hurt by this, but hopefully that can be remedied with adding joint status, or whatever the case may be.

Thank you for your congrats and sorry if this post doesn't make sense, I had class last night and my brain is definitely "goo" this morning, haha.

[Anonymous]

Come on, give me a break.  Piggybacking is helpful in many ways and has helped a lot of people, ecspecially the younger people trying to establish themselves.  To make a statement that this is not the Mafia, is ridiculous........when in fact, the credit bureaus are just that, the new age of strong arming society. 

[MidnightVoice]

---

TheDarke wrote:

Come on, give me a break.  Piggybacking is helpful in many ways and has helped a lot of people, ecspecially the younger people trying to establish themselves.  To make a statement that this is not the Mafia, is ridiculous........when in fact, the credit bureaus are just that, the new age of strong arming society. 

---

There is a difference between piggybacking with someone you know and "buying" history that has no relationship to your own spending habits.

And at least PART of the mess the credit markets/housing markets are in is due to these sorts of purchases.

[Anonymous]

Piggybacking is essential in today's economy.

It is the one way that you can ensure that your family members, especially your children will do better than you have done.  In this modern world, credit is becoming more important than cash.  Credit gives you a way in to the credit scoring market without having owned a house or a car.  A person can do wonders with a good credit score.  If a parent takes the time out to add someone to their credit cards and what not, they are making it more possible for their kids to start their own businesses if they so choose or get a decent job, let's say, in the financial sector if that's what they so choose.  A person should not have to be old in order to do these things.  There is nothing shady about piggybacking.  People who add other people to their credit cards are still primarily responsible for getting the cards paid off in full and on time every month.  The way I see it, it is a practice that other people are jealous of simply because they do not have anyone to piggyback them or the people who are willing to piggyback them, don't have the decent credit to do so.

I say, if piggybacking is so unethical, let's not stop there.  Let's eliminate the requirement of references on employment applications or background checks for people applying for highly sensitive jobs.

Of course, I'm being fecicious when I say that, but do you see what I mean?

[MidnightVoice]

---

bistraung wrote:

Piggybacking is essential in today's economy.

It is the one way that you can ensure that your family members, especially your children will do better than you have done.  In this modern world, credit is becoming more important than cash.  Credit gives you a way in to the credit scoring market without having owned a house or a car.  A person can do wonders with a good credit score.  If a parent takes the time out to add someone to their credit cards and what not, they are making it more possible for their kids to start their own businesses if they so choose or get a decent job, let's say, in the financial sector if that's what they so choose.  A person should not have to be old in order to do these things.  There is nothing shady about piggybacking.  People who add other people to their credit cards are still primarily responsible for getting the cards paid off in full and on time every month.  The way I see it, it is a practice that other people are jealous of simply because they do not have anyone to piggyback them or the people who are willing to piggyback them, don't have the decent credit to do so.

I say, if piggybacking is so unethical, let's not stop there.  Let's eliminate the requirement of references on employment applications or background checks for people applying for highly sensitive jobs.

Of course, I'm being fecicious when I say that, but do you see what I mean?

---

I am sorry, but there is a difference between being added to a parent's account and "buying" AU status that bears no relation to one's spending patterns.  And I repeat - it is the latter that has caused the problems, not the former