New FICO08

[Anonymous]

MV is there really a difference? both seem like unfair advantage to me. What does a parent's credit history have to do with a child's? Other than establishing that the parent knows how to manage credit and extrapolating that the kid MIGHT it doesn't tell us anything at all.

___

In terms of the Thread in general:

A parent's good credit cannot guarantee that the child will also be responsible. There may be some correlation but there certainly is not any causation, and in statistics causation carries weight whilst correlation is just fancy guesswork.

Teenagers can get access to credit well enough without being nudged along by mom's 30 credit history.

I could barely take one step on my college campus without being tackled by credit card companies stationed on campus. every time i bought a book from the book store there was a credit card app in the bottom of the bag.

My credit scores are just fine and my credit is just fine and my mother did not have to lend me her credit score for it to get to this place.

I am credit worthy because I am responsible with my credit not because my mother is (she is by the way VERY responsible with credit, my sister on the other hand is not AT ALL).

just my $.02.

ETA: sorry i had to edit for clarity since only the first couple lines were directed to MV.

Message Edited by dizzier on 11-27-2007 05:42 AM

[Dawn]

---

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. 

---

FWIW ... my young adult daughters have never been AUs on anyone's accounts and they are doing just fine with building and maintaining their own credit.  I think this is true of many responsible young adults.  They have an opportunity to start out with a clear credit history and with the proper knowledge and discipline, they can rapidly obtain very benefical scores.

[MidnightVoice]

---

dizzier wrote:
MV is there really a difference? both seem like unfair advantage to me. What does a parent's credit history have to do with a child's? Other than establishing that the parent knows how to manage credit and extrapolating that the kid MIGHT it doesn't tell us anything at all.

---

The classic case is stay at home mothers of a gertain age/generation - they tend to be real AU users, and they are now going to be penalized if they don't become joint.  And they can be in trouble if death or divorce intervenes at the wrong moment.  I think that is very different from buying credit history

[MidnightVoice]

---

denbar2003 wrote:

FWIW ... my young adult daughters have never been AUs on anyone's accounts and they are doing just fine with building and maintaining their own credit.  I think this is true of many responsible young adults.  They have an opportunity to start out with a clear credit history and with the proper knowledge and discipline, they can rapidly obtain very benefical scores.

---

The only reason my daughter is an AU on one of my cards is to have it for emergencies

[Anonymous]

---

@MidnightVoice wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:
MV is there really a difference? both seem like unfair advantage to me. What does a parent's credit history have to do with a child's? Other than establishing that the parent knows how to manage credit and extrapolating that the kid MIGHT it doesn't tell us anything at all.

---

The classic case is stay at home mothers of a gertain age/generation - they tend to be real AU users, and they are now going to be penalized if they don't become joint. And they can be in trouble if death or divorce intervenes at the wrong moment. I think that is very different from buying credit history

---

I think that is different, but not really a justification. She is a housewife, she has no income, she has no credit, she is not credit worthy. honestly, if i were a financial institution i wouldn't give a darn about whether someone was an AU for 30 years. that person as an individual, without the assistance of the spouse, is not credit worthy.

[MidnightVoice]

---

dizzier wrote:

. She is a housewife, she has no income, she has no credit, she is not credit worthy. honestly, if i were a financial institution i wouldn't give a darn about whether someone was an AU for 30 years. that person as an individual, without the assistance of the spouse, is not credit worthy.

---

The current estimate of the value of a stay-at-home-housewife is in excess of $100,000 per year 

And you might as well say that her spouse, without her, is not credit worthy.  My DW and I are a couple, and everything is shared, good and bad. 

[Anonymous]

I agree that people should not be able to PURCHASE authorized users.  However, I believe that the scoring system itself has made people resort to such extreme measures.  For example, if you had an auto account for 3 years.  Never been late.  One late payment will drop your score 60 points.  There should be some consideration of the entire payment history.  To me the one late payment should be viewed as an extenuating circumstance, not a consistent pattern.  Therefore, a 60 point drop in a score for one late over 36 months is ridiculous.  Now how long will it take that person to get their 60 points back without using an AU??  Any ideas.  Or do you have to wait a year..... 

Another example would be someone who chooses to pay cash for most items.  There credit score would be lower because they don't have enought credit.  Why should someone be penalized because they choose not to pay interest on all their purchases, or because they don't want the temptation of having these accounts open that they don't want to use.  

It's crazy to me that you have to be scared to close an account.  That too has an adverse effect on your score.  So if you choose to pay it off, and not use it again, then you have to leave it open in order for your score not to drop. I guess I don't understand the logic.

For everyone that lives in this perfect world and never has anything go wrong, then yes you can take such a hard stance.  However, I live in the real world where things don't happen perfectly everyday.  The credit scoring system is the basis of so many things these days.  They have to find a way truly be able to weigh the high-risk individuals. I believe people just us the AU loophole because they had no choice. 

Do I think that all consumers that use AU's are upstanding citizens.  The answer is no.  But I also think that the whole mis-use of  AU's is a direct result of the scoring system itself and how long it takes you to recover from any negative marks on your record. 

[Anonymous]

MV: but if you were to split then who would have the job and who would have the credit?

in credit you are viewed on your own merits unless it's a joint account, or you have a cosigner. if you want to be viewed as a couple by creditors then co-apply.

Message Edited by dizzier on 11-27-2007 06:34 AM

[Anonymous]

from what I understand, if you add your spouse as a joint account holder then they can still get credit for it.

The difference is, AU arent responsible for any charges/payments and anyone can be an AU.

Joint, both are responsible and only family members/spouse can be added from what I understand.

at least you can be sure that NO ONE would sell a "joint account" like they did an AU account.

not sure if children can be added joint, but at least those stay at home moms and dads can.

And maybe someone can let us know. Can a husband with good credit add his wife as a joint account holder to his card even if the wifes credit isnt as good? Ive heard they would still have to qualify as if they were getting card on their own?? which would defeat the whole idea!!

thanks

[MidnightVoice]

---

dizzier wrote:
MV: but if you were to split then who would have the job and who would have the credit?

in credit you are viewed on your own merits unless it's a joint account, or you have a cosigner. if you want to be viewed as a couple by creditors then co-apply.

---

I agree.  But for many years this was not required.  Life has changed and we need to change with it!