this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1272 points (96.0% liked)

4chan

4258 readers
13 users here now

Greentexts, memes, everything 4chan.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8bitguy@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I certainly have problems with the way current financial institutions operate, but prior to the credit score there wasn't a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk. It was left to a good ol' boy process rife with racism, classism, and sexism. Sadly, we're better off with what we have now, as flawed as it is.

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There still isn't a standardized and scientific way to assess credit risk. There are three major companies, several minor ones, and all of them offer multiple products.

IT'S ALL A FUCKING SCAM. We just blindly accept random institutions compiling all of our data and telling a bank whether or not we should be given a loan regardless of our ability to pay it back. It has little to do with income anymore, which should be the only allowable metric. Don't want the risk? Get the fuck out of the mortgage business.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It was so much better before! When being a woman, or god forbid, being black, counted as serious criteria. Oh, and you best be friends with the banker. (Read the part, again, about being a white man, who was well accepted in the community.)

It's not a scam, it's a step forward. Time to take the next step.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Just because it was worse before, doesn't mean we can't also make the NOW better, again.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i dont see the problem with improving your credit score by sacrificing a virgin to the volcano every year, at least anyone can do it instead of just the well accepted white men

im being unfair of course, unlike modern credit scores tossing a virgin into the volcano doesnt still put minorities at a disadvantage

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

which should be the only allowable metric.

Why? Income is a terrible metric. Regardless of how much money I've made, I've always spent within my means. I've never carried debt, but always has my cc to build the credit score.

The idea that some bozo who spends more than he earns has a better credit score than me just because he makes more money makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Income is a terrible metric.

I suggest you lie on a few credit applications (not really). You'll be amazed at how readily you get approved just because your income crosses a certain threshold, even with the same score.

Several years ago I was looking to add a couple of cards, primarily for emergency reasons. I apply for a card and get rejected. Six months later I get a new job that's promising me a significantly higher income but I haven't started receiving more money yet (contract work is fun). I apply for the same card, same information, knowing my credit score had not changed, the only difference in my applications was my income (that required no verification) and that time I got approved.

So apparently the banks have a different thought process than you.

And what the fuck is wrong with you that you even think about someone else's credit score? Are you also mad that your neighbor is gay?

Don't answer that...

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I never said it wasn't a factor, only a terrible one that shouldnt be the only one. Also try improving your credit score and see the better rates and cards with better benefits open up to you.

And what the fuck is wrong with you that you even think about someone else’s credit score?

Considering you think I spend time thinking about people's credit score because I think it's better metric for getting credit, this question is all but a straight up admission that you spend a lot of mental energy thinking about the income of other people.

Are you mad that your neighbor is straight too?

[–] 8bitguy@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What about those that have sufficient income, but don't pay their bills and have defaulted on previous loans?

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Mortgages were, prior to assholes screwing the whole thing up with mortgage-backed securities, seen as one of the lowest risk things banks could handle.

If you default on a mortgage the bank forecloses and auctions the home. This was QUITE rare before the housing crash. The problem was that the banking industry became so lax that they were giving loans to people that actually did NOT have the money to pay for them, figuring that they could just seize and sell the home as they always had. The problem THEN is that mortgage-backed securities were a thing by that point and every foreclosure caused another domino to fall over.

It became a shitshow because banks fucked themselves over being greedy pieces of shit.

[–] billy_bollocks@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

About 780 last I looked. Utilization went up when I decided to do some travel this year. But go on thinking that the only people that want a system reformed are the ones that don't know how to work it.

I'm sure that'll get you far in life. All the way to brown-nosing middle management.

[–] billy_bollocks@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is the internet. I, along with everyone else here, don’t give two shits about your score or opinion bud.

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

And yet your cunt ass cares enough to post.

So you're a hypocritical cunt, not just a normal cunt.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it was a publicly available algorithim, then Id believe you. But it ain't, so I'm suspicious.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

We don't know the algorithms specifically, but we have enough information to have a pretty good idea how it works.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's better than what it was. High time to take another look, but it's far, far better.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago

It seems to me it doesn't count risk. It counts profitability. It's why it drops when people pay their loans early.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there wasn't a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk.

Neither is it now. You forgot the 'hidden from public' part.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

They tell u what affects your score right on the credit report! Hahaha What the fuck are u clowns talking about.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And now it's time to nix what we have for something better, just like we did before.

[–] slipperydippery@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would you be better off? In the rest of the world you just have to provide proof of income and proof of savings and debt and banks can calculate how much they are willing to loan you for the purchase of a house. Seems to work fine, and I don't have to have pay interest on meaningless loans just to prove that I can.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that just having the income and savings doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll be as good about paying back a loan as someone of your same income and savings.

That's supposed to be where the credit score helps, but the current system is so shady that it basically just reads as the ol' boys club system but asking pretty please to pretend there's a formula and method being used.

[–] slipperydippery@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think there are plenty of failsafe mechanisms. But most importantly, if you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank has the right to take possession of your house. Those forces the bank to do it's due diligence with regards to the value of the house. Also, if a bank has been too lenient with its mortgages, it can get into serious trouble - the government here enforces pretty strict rules to prevent people from getting in over their heads.

[–] beatensoup@baraza.africa 1 points 1 year ago

If you don’t take credit facilities but pay for your expenses in cash, you are considered a risk. Credit scoring based on credit card purchases is akin to being required to be spied on every step of the way just so you can access what you practically can without the credit in the first place. I don’t have a problem with people who are fine with that kind of behavior. But there should be a way of fair assessment even if you pay in cash.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah. It's really changed a lot...