Archive for the ‘Credit Issuance.’ Category

What exactly makes assigning AU status legal? Or not?

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

I may need to explain a bit more about the legality of assigning AU status:

1.) If permitted by the contract terms(note those words), an account holder can assign AU status to anyone. One is not limited to immediate family members or those who are employed by the account holder, as the case may be unless the credit contract agreed to by the parties specifically states otherwise.

While I personally see an account holder’s assigning AU status to anyone as being “risky” and its extension to family members/acquaintances as being an outmoded way to build credit (it’s still useful in business for staff access to the business’ credit lines), that does not mean such move is illegal. It isn’t…if it stops here…but…

2.) The illegal action (if NOT permitted by the contract terms) is SELLING and/or LEASING/SUBLEASING that access to a third party.

3.) The remarks I made, and have made in the past, pertain to Situation #2:

Leasing/subleasing/selling that AU status, either directly or through a broker, is the “no-no” if not expressly permitted under, and according to, the terms of the contract with the credit issuer . If such an action is not permitted outright or such original contract with the credit grantor is silent as to whether “selling” AU status is permitted? Then any such action is in breach of contract and can easily rise to charges of theft, fraud, and other crimes if the credit grantor would wish to pursue them.

At the very least, this situation would leave the account holder liable for the breach. That, in turn, could result in rate jacking, “calling” the loan (demanding immediate payment in full), and lawsuits. The third-party broker and the AU “for pay” would likely also end up in court and made to account for their actions by the original credit issuer (and possibly any other creditors who relied on the “tainted” credit reports to make credit decisions in the “AU for a fee”‘s favor).

Not a pretty picture, is it?

Someone is a bit defensive about "seasoned trade line" sales…and should be.

Tuesday, March 25th, 2008

But not for the reasons she thinks apply…

It seems that a certain barking beagle from WV is howling about “other sites” once again at a certain “friendly”, “professional” credit repair board. Her remarks in this post are rather, shall we say, “revealing” of a lot more than she might wish:

….I felt it was worth mentioning that the AU status and the selling of trade lines is what the main concern seems to be with other forums pro-FICO 08 crowd. Those people are making it out to be a shady dirty unethical way of improving your credit scores …

No, indeed it does not matter how anyone got into a mess…although it seems that someone is rather on the defensive here. Why?

Whether helping your scores by disputing a tradeline, by filing suit , or by buying a seasoned tradeline, no one here makes a judgment about the character of any guest or member here for doing what they feel they need to do.

Uh, look at what I bolded : Yes, it’s legal to dispute a trade line, to file suit (if a CoA exists)…but…

That “buy a seasoned tradeline” bit? I would say there are both ethical and legal questions to this one:

1.) Creditors did not consider such actions (a form of underground reselling of access rights to a credit line without owning such account, which is what an AU (authorized user) is) when drawing up the contracts offered.

2.) Therefore, the creditor is suddenly facing exposure to unplanned-for losses and definently do not get a “cut” of the proceeds. A risk they may not even know they have been exposed to until it’s too late.

3.) The owner of the “seasoned trade line”? All they “own” is access rights and concurrent liability for any monies borrowed under the terms of the contract as agreed to. Since the “selling” of the AU status (access without liability) was NOT part of the contract agreed to between themselves and the creditor, the debtor (account holder) has NO legal right to resell this access to anyone.

4.) By reselling the access without the consent of the creditor to do so, they then are not only in breach of contract but they are fraudulently collecting monies that they are not entitled to under contract.

That’s called “theft” and “fraud” around these parts.

5.) The reseller (the “seasoned trade lines” broker) is re-selling something that the seller did not have the right to sell to begin with. In other words, they are, for all intents and purposes, selling stolen property. In the vernacular, they are “fencing” the stolen goods. They are also receiving stolen property. (Yes, a debt is property.)

All of that is against the law, too.

6.) The buyer of the “seasoned trade line” is therefore an accessory to theft and a purchaser of stolen goods. And, no, one cannot argue lack of knowledge that the item is stolen…the buyer of the trade line goes into the deal knowing full well what they are buying and therefore has no defense in court AND is risking not only losing their money to “buy” the trade line, but fines, legal defense fees…and their not-so-hard-earned “repaired” credit!

Never mind finding themselves ending up on the wrong side of “breach of contract” and possible criminal fraud charges from every single creditor that the “repaired by purchase” trade line defrauded by presenting the debtor in a better light than they really deserved to be.

For a pittance. You don’t really think that a reseller such as our howling beagle’s CRO friend hands over the entire fee (or even the bulk of it) to the one who sold the AU access to the good trade line(s) they worked so hard to earn…do you? :wink:

FICO08 seems to be stymied…

Monday, March 24th, 2008

It seems that someone at “Infinite Credit” is not-so-secretly gloating over the apparent decision of some CRAs to tell “Fair Isaac” to “Take ‘Fico ’08″ and Shove It!”. Or, rather is it really their decision because they are being so “considerate” toward consumers? Or, is it something else:

…[R]ead the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Not saying that the CRA’s won’t allow the model to be applied to their data (EX may) rather, only that the model is invalid as presented. Creditors may use it and if they do, I can foresee some litigation

The truth: The model may or may not be “flawed”–we don’t have enough information to know that and we won’t get it.

No matter, though: Fear of litigation is what’s stopping the CRAs from accepting “FICO08″. This has NOTHING to do with the validity–or lack of it–of authorized user status and really has nothing to do with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, either. The reason I say this is simple:

AUs are NOT parties to the credit contract, but are simply given permission to access the credit line as proxy for the account holder(s) by the account holder (owner) AND the creditor is willing to accept this proxy access as part of the contractural terms.

There is NO law that requires any creditor to allow for such proxy access. All the ECOA does is require that everyone have the same opportunity to access credit in their own name.

“Equal Credit OPPORTUNITY” does NOT equal the opportunity to go “piggybacking” on the account of an actual party to the contract…no matter how the ‘piggybacking’ is justified. The fact that some family members who might benefit from this process would lose out if the AU status is “deep-sixed” by creditors is of no importance here.

The ECOA also does NOT require that this status and its benefits continue to be made available forever to those who already have it. In other words, AU status can be revoked, as long as it’s taken away from everyone!

So where’s the ‘beef’? Everyone suffers equally…Oh…someone’s “seasoned tradelines business” might suffer just a bit if FICO08 did manage to take hold? :grin:

Is "FICO, '08" discriminatory against AUs?

Monday, December 24th, 2007

Simple answer: No, based on what we can know at this time.

FACT: FICO ’08 ‘s “dirty details” are NOT totally “fixed” nor fully accessable (or, at least as accessible as they ever are) yet, so the arguments on discussion boards such as this thread here are, at best, very premature.

The main argument by the “Score the AUs? YES!” crowd is here: The FICO scoring algorithm changes are allegedly discriminatory on their face per the ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act ) because these standards allegedly exclude the Authorized User (AU) from having those tradelines counted in the scoring. There might be some basis for the charges IF Fair-Isaac, in response to these whiners, makes “exceptions” for some AUs and not others. This is not likely.

Yes, the law permits the assignment of the AU status to anyone by any account holder at this time if the credit issuer allows for AUs. However,  it is not a guarantee that the “whiners” will win their argument now. Here’s why:

a.) While lenders are permitted per the law to create AU status on a credit account, they are NOT required to allow for any such thing as long as this policy is applied to everyone !

b.) An account counts in the scoring algorithm only if it is reported to a CRA by the credit issuer.

c. ) Nobody–and I mean nobodyis required to report squat to a CRA.

Therefore…

d.) All the credit issuer need do to avoid the “crybabies” who would not like the AU status to be rendered obsolete is…not report anything at all about any account to any CRA!

If they do that, there is no discrimination per the law, since everyone–primary account holders, joint account holders, and AUs– suffers equally if this is what takes place.

CRAs and creditors are known to take the path of least resistence..and guess what that might be if the “babies” fuss too much? That’s right… :twisted:

The “Law of Unintended Consequences” would be enforced once again.

Payday loan limtiations for military personnel: A bad thing?

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

Or, is the new payday lender interest limitations in Federal law actually a good thing by making these loans essentially impossible to get for military personnel, at least in UT. The “Deseret Morning News” article (via. “Overlawyered” ) gives a clue as to what is going on:

 

Payday lenders tells military ‘no’

Companies refusing loans at mandated lower rate

By Lee Davidson
Deseret Morning News

Published: October 2, 2007

© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

 

Utah payday lenders began refusing Monday to make loans to members of the military rather than give them much lower rates mandated by a new federal law. That new law,…caps the annual interest on payday, car title or tax refund anticipation loans at 36 percent annually for members of the military and their families. A 2005 Deseret Morning News series found payday loans here averaged a whopping 521 percent interest, and car title loans averaged 300 percent.

Cort Walker, spokesman for the payday loan industry’s Utah Consumer Lending Association, said Utah payday lenders simply cannot make a profit… so they will decline to do business with members of the military.

“At 36 percent annual percent rate, the total fees we could charge are $1.38 per $100 for a two-week loan. That is less than 10 cents a day….

“Payroll advance lenders could not even meet employee payroll at that rate, let alone cover other fixed expenses and make a profit,” [F]or such lenders to reach the break-even point they must charge about $13.70 per $100 loaned for two weeks.

Walker said Utah payday lenders will now ask potential customers if they are active members of the military. If they are, “we cannot offer them a loan,” he said.

While refusing loans to someone based on such things as race or religion would violate civil rights laws, the payday loan industry’s lawyers say refusing service to the military does not violate laws…

Walker said, “This law will force the members of the military to choose between more expensive alternatives like bounced checks or overdraft protections and even unregulated and more risky alternatives…”

And when is a payday loan the cheaper alternative??

Linda Hilton, a payday loan industry critic and director of the Coalition of Religious Communities, disagrees.

“It may be taking an option away from the military, but it’s taking away their worst option and leading them toward others,” she said….

The Pentagon issued Monday a press release saying it hopes the new 36 percent cap will help…and said payday and car title loans “often lead to a cycle of ever-increasing debt” as families cannot repay them on time, and take out more loans to cover earlier loans.

“The protection the regulation offers is not a wall preventing a service member from getting assistance, rather it is more like a flashing sign pointing out danger and directing the borrower to a safer way of satisfying immediate financial need,” said Leslye A. Arsht, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy….

The State of Utah took action only after the military complained about payday lenders. And no wonder: These outfits cluster like cockroaches in a kitchen around military bases, taking advantage of the desperation of military personnel and their dependents who often literally live hand-to-mouth. These scumbags also rely on the “persuasive” power of the potential of a serviceman’s/servicewoman’s getting into real trouble with the “brass” in order to collect on the debt (most of us would call it extortion and intimidation).

Here is the “Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act” of 1993′s pertinent section:

Subtitle F–Other Matters
SEC. 670. LIMITATIONS ON TERMS OF CONSUMER CREDIT EXTENDED TO SERVICEMEMBERS AND DEPENDENTS.

(a) Terms of Consumer Credit.–Chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“Sec. 987. Terms of consumer credit extended to members and dependents: limitations
“(a) Interest.–A creditor who extends consumer credit to a covered member of the armed forces or a dependent of such a member shall not require the member or dependent to pay interest with respect to the extension of such credit, except as–
“(1) agreed to under the terms of the credit agreement or
promissory note;
“(2) authorized by applicable State or Federal law; and

“(3) not specifically prohibited by this section.

“(b) Annual Percentage Rate.–A creditor described in subsection (a) may not impose an annual percentage rate of interest greater than 36 percent with respect to the consumer credit extended to a covered member or a dependent of a covered member.”

And, how is the law applicable to payday loans? Well…

” “(e) Limitations.–It shall be unlawful for any creditor to extend consumer credit to a covered member or a dependent of such a member with respect to which–
“(1) the creditor rolls over, renews, repays, refinances,
or consolidates any consumer credit extended to the borrower by the same creditor with the proceeds of other credit extended to the same covered member or a dependent;

“(2) the borrower is required to waive the borrower’s right
to legal recourse under any otherwise applicable provision of
State or Federal law, including any provision of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;

“(3) the creditor requires the borrower to submit to
arbitration or imposes onerous legal notice provisions in the
case of a dispute;

“(4) the creditor demands unreasonable notice from the
borrower as a condition for legal action;

“(5) the creditor uses a check or other method of access to
a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the
borrower, or the title of a vehicle as security for the loan obligation;

In other words, this law prohibits charging interest in excess of 36% per annum and defines what the covered loan types are: Payday loans and car title loans.

And 36% per annum is NOT “enough” on a two-week loan? Those payday lenders can take their s*it and shove it! :evil:

Payday lenders and military personnel: A case of "The Law of Unintended Consequences"?

Sunday, October 21st, 2007

Or, is the new payday lender interest limitations in Federal law actually a good thing by making these loans essentially impossible to get for military personnel, at least in UT. The “Deseret Morning News” article (via. “Overlawyered” ) gives a clue as to what is going on:

 

Payday lenders tells military ‘no’

Companies refusing loans at mandated lower rate

By Lee Davidson
Deseret Morning News

Published: October 2, 2007

© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

 

Utah payday lenders began refusing Monday to make loans to members of the military rather than give them much lower rates mandated by a new federal law. That new law, which took effect Monday, caps the annual interest on payday, car title or tax refund anticipation loans at 36 percent annually for members of the military and their families. A 2005 Deseret Morning News series found payday loans here averaged a whopping 521 percent interest, and car title loans averaged 300 percent.

Cort Walker, spokesman for the payday loan industry’s Utah Consumer Lending Association, said Utah payday lenders simply cannot make a profit if they charge only 36 percent — so they will decline to do business with members of the military.

“At 36 percent annual percent rate, the total fees we could charge are $1.38 per $100 for a two-week loan. That is less than 10 cents a day,” Walker said.

“Payroll advance lenders could not even meet employee payroll at that rate, let alone cover other fixed expenses and make a profit,” he said. Walker added that for such lenders to reach the break-even point they must charge about $13.70 per $100 loaned for two weeks.

Walker said Utah payday lenders will now ask potential customers if they are active members of the military. If they are, “we cannot offer them a loan,” he said.

The payday loan sharks…eh…lenders …can’t make money at 300% per annum plus?? Something is wrong here…and it starts with picking on our servicemen and women!

Walker said, “This law will force the members of the military to choose between more expensive alternatives like bounced checks or overdraft protections and even unregulated and more risky alternatives, like offshore Internet lending.”

And the military will then stop that, too. The military HATES it when servicemen and women get into financial trouble. Payday loan places, which have clustered around military bases like flies around shit, have been the source of more grief–and loss of manpower. The reason? Military personnel who end up with bad credit ratings/in financial trouble may are not able to get security clearances nor can be deployed overseas. The concern is that military personnel in financial trouble are likely to take bribes or sell out to the enemy…and this has happened!

All the Pentagon is doing is trying to “protect their investment” in personnel and training by helping military personnel (and their families) keep out of debt and available to deploy. Besides, at a 36% rate of interest, the banks can make money…lots of it! Even (the apparently late) “Aspire” card did not ask for a much higher interest rate than that…and we know the type of thieves…eh, businesspeople that own CompuCredit!!

“The protection the regulation offers is not a wall preventing a service member from getting assistance, rather it is more like a flashing sign pointing out danger and directing the borrower to a safer way of satisfying immediate financial need,” said Leslye A. Arsht, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy.

Subtitle F–Other Matters

SEC. 670. LIMITATIONS ON TERMS OF CONSUMER CREDIT EXTENDED TO
SERVICEMEMBERS AND DEPENDENTS.

(a) Terms of Consumer Credit.–Chapter 49 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“Sec. 987. Terms of consumer credit extended to members and dependents: limitations

“(a) Interest.–A creditor who extends consumer credit to a covered
member of the armed forces or a dependent of such a member shall not require the member or dependent to pay interest with respect to the  extension of such credit, except as–
“(1) agreed to under the terms of the credit agreement or
promissory note;
“(2) authorized by applicable State or Federal law; and
“(3) not specifically prohibited by this section.

“(b) Annual Percentage Rate.–A creditor described in subsection
(a) may not impose an annual percentage rate of interest greater than 36 percent with respect to the consumer credit extended to a covered member
or a dependent of a covered member.”…
“(e) Limitations.–It shall be unlawful for any creditor to extend
consumer credit to a covered member or a dependent of such a member with respect to which–
“(1) the creditor rolls over, renews, repays, refinances,
or consolidates any consumer credit extended to the borrower by
the same creditor with the proceeds of other credit extended to
the same covered member or a dependent;

“(2) the borrower is required to waive the borrower’s right
to legal recourse under any otherwise applicable provision of
State or Federal law, including any provision of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;
“(3) the creditor requires the borrower to submit to
arbitration or imposes onerous legal notice provisions in the
case of a dispute;
“(4) the creditor demands unreasonable notice from the
borrower as a condition for legal action;
``(5) the creditor uses a check or other method of access to
a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the
borrower, or the title of a vehicle as security for the loan obligation;

See especially U.S. C. Chapter 49, Title 10, Subtitle F, §670.987e(5). That is the applicable subsection covering payday and title loans and making them subject to the interest rate restriction.

When does "They tricked me!" stop and "personal responsibilty" begin?

Saturday, April 21st, 2007

This college student should have found out when one becomes the other. An intriguing entry at “Overlawyered” for April 2, 2007 tells the story of a college student, Joshua Endres, who was taken in by the on-campus “hard sell” by Wells Fargo to accept a credit card as a form of overdraft protection:

In 2002, an 18-year old community college student named Joshua Endres signed up for a Wells Fargo credit card, allegedly based in part on the promise made by a sales representative that it could provide overdraft protection for his Wells Fargo checking account. He “does not recall” seeing any of the disclosures and disclaimers from the bank which explained to him that there’s no such thing as a free lunch — that he would be charged a fee if he overdrew his checking account.

A few months after signing up, he overdrew his account, and was charged this fee. He discovered this a few days later, when he received his credit card statement. He was so outraged by this unconscionable behavior by Wells Fargo that he immediately cancelled the card. No, not really; this isn’t April 1st. In fact, he immediately used the card for four more years, incurring at least fifty more overdraft charges. Then he filed a lawsuit demanding restitution, and compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that nobody told him that he would be charged a fee.

Yes, he was only 18 at the time he took out the credit line, and could well be excused for not understanding the card agreement, even if he bothered to read it: Card agreements are notorious for being so convoluted at even lawyers/law professors at top-flight law schools such as Harvard Law School cannot understand them. So, it is understandable that the rest of us would have a difficult time avoiding the traps and pitfalls that are deliberately included in such contracts with the express purpose of making the most money possible for the greedy sons o’beotches credit card issuers.

However, there is a limit to this: Once the overdraft protection had been triggered–and he was billed for it–the plain black and white numbers on the next statement should have been explanation enough. And, they were…enough to get him to allegedly cancel the card. Or, did he? How in the heck was he able to use it for four more years if the card had been cancelled? He had to have kept the card open and have been paying on the debt; if he had not, the card would have gone into default and charged-off long before then. So, bye-bye to the “I did not know about this and got rid of the card as soon as I found out!” defense.

It also seems his attorney is not buying the whole story, either: He admits his client is a lousy money manager who, in essence, has no CoA against Wells Fargo. This news story tells of the situation. And of a class action suit in which Endes is the lead plaintiff…although the reason for the suit is NOT the existence of the fee, but rather the way it’s assessed!:

Nearly five years later, Endres is still struggling to pay off his last $300 of debt triggered largely by a $10 charge incurred each time after overdrawing his checking account by as little as one cent.

Endres, 22, is now a music major at Cal Poly Pomona.


More members could join Endres later this year if a judge, as Redlands attorney Richard McCune expects, certifies his lawsuit as a class action.

McCune… is with Welebir & McCune, a Redlands-based law firm that specializes in consumer class-action lawsuits.

The suit seeks unlimited damages and demands that Wells Fargo reimburse customers and stop what the lawsuit refers to as “hidden fees.”

“A reasonable fee is fine, but $10 a day is not reasonable,” McCune said. “These companies have to take responsibility. They’re free to make a profit, but not from hidden fees.”…

McCune admits Endres could have done a better job of tracking his charges. Endres once exceeded his limit 62 times in a year, causing him to pay $620 in finance charges so he could obtain $1,115 in cash.

“It took a couple of years before he sat up and noticed,” McCune said. “The information was available to him.”

So, it took two years for the lead plaintiff to notice that Wells Fargo was bleeding him dry?

And, what about Wells Fargo keeping open the checking account of someone who obviously was lousy at managing such? Blame to go around both sides…and anyone who claims that it’s simply a bad excuse for poor behavior on the part of debtors trying to get out of voluntarily-incurred debt, particularly in BK (most debt is, at least to an extent, voluntary) seem to be ignoring the fact that creditors are not helping by letting greed override “due diligence”.

In other words, the problem is not with courts getting judges from the “debtors’ Bar” (whatever that is) rather than the “creditors’ Bar” (equally ludicrous) and therefore cheating creditors out of the money they lent out. The problem is really a combination of debtors who don’t do their darndest to stop what they are doing and live a lifestyle that they are really able to afford, even if it’s not the one they aspire to and creditors who out-loan shark Louis the Loan Shark in their very avarice. Never mind agreements full of legal ledgerdemain which confuses even other attorneys and judges!

A law that could prove the "Law of Unintended Consequences"…

Monday, March 26th, 2007

…if it should pass the Legislature and become law in Maine. Senator John M. Nutting from Leeds, ME, has raised legislation which would make it illegal to offer credit cards to anyone under 21without the permission of a parent or guardian. The intent: To keep the credit card companies from preying on college students by offering them credit they are likely to not be able to pay back.

The Bill: LD 371 – “An Act to Protect Young Consumers” .

The Act would prohibit such practices as storming college campuses and offering credit to students who are out on their own for the first time and may not have the income to pay back the credit line, hence creating defaults and destroying the credit ratings of young people before they even get out of school.
Nice idea…but there are some real problems with this:

1. The legal age for entering into contracts is 18. That includes credit card contracts. Not only does that illegally limit the legal rights of adults, which the 18-year-old is, but the assumption that all young people under 21 are in higher education and can have no independent income nor are responsible in paying bills is patently absurd. College is NOT compulsory nor are college students required to NOT hold a job or earn a living…far from it. There are also a lot of young people who can run their financial lives very well, even better than a lot of older people. This bill would essentially prohibit ANYONE under 21 from getting unsecured credit unless the parents take the risk and sign a permission slip of sorts, a humiliating and so unnecessary experience.

2. An 18-year-old is NOT a “child” in the legal sense; they are emancipated by passage of time. Yes, they are still the child of the parent, but that is a biological and/or social role whose legal application in terms of control over the young person have been nullified.

3. It’s a violation of the Federal Equal Opportunity Credit Act. If the young person is eligible, the credit grantor HAS to grant credit. Therefore, this places the creditor in a Catch-22: If this law gets passed, and the creditor obeys it, they are liable for violating the Federal law. If they obey Federal law, Maine law would be violated. Therefore, the only choice the creditors would have left to them would be to no longer do business in Maine period. Therefore, nobody could have an account with that creditor no matter their age or credit standing; existing accounts would have to be closed.

The commentator at “Guard My Credit File.org” has noted a lot of these problems, but her suggestions produce problems of their own:

A better direction for this well meaning proposal, would be to remove the student’s liability for credit card debts, that were incurred under the age of 21 while in college. Thereby removing the ability for credit card companies to sue them if they should default. (Obviously some detail would have to be given so that claiming “college status,” wouldn’t be abused.) But doing this would cause two things to occur.

  • First, if the credit card companies want to continue to be stupid and send credit cards to students/children who have no visible means of income, then make it impossible for them to force payment if the child defaults.
  • Second, since the credit card companies really like that money from mom and dad, they will begin to require a co-signer on these accounts…

Now that is a win-win proposal.

Another direction should be to ban the kick-backs many colleges receive from the very credit card companies that financially strap these students.

The ONLY proposal that makes sense here? Ban kickbacks to the colleges. If the college cannot make money off of this, they will likely ban these companies from doing business on campus.

The rest of the suggestions raise problems of their own:

1. Prohibit the creditors from suing under-21 customers who default.

Nice try, but that raises the same issue as not being allowed to issue credit without parental permission for this age group: 18-year-olds are adults, and along with the right to enter into contracts is the right to sue and be sued. Also, this would essentially dry up credit for young adults since the creditors would be prohibited from using legal means to recover the debt, and may well not be allowed to use it at all if the SOLC is shorter than the time between default and the customer reaching the age of 21. Therefore, they would not offer credit at all to any young person, whether they are able to pay for it or not.

Why? Too risky: Would YOU offer credit to someone who needed to have Mommy or Daddy sign for them AND not be able to sue the kid if they default ? The bill’s provision is a permission slip, NOT a formal co-signing; the parents presumably are not on the hook for repayment. Also, requiring co-signers is something credit card companies do not like to do.

2. This could also give “cover” for those over 21 by allowing them to “hide” behind the “suit-proof” individual.

Ridiculous? Not exactly; scammers “hide behind” other parties all of the time. Since the scammer will likely get away and the creditor could not hold the under-21 person responsible in their stead (and would have to prove the younger person knew of the violation and willfully aquiesced to it to be able to get other charges to stick and potentially recover that way), guess what creditors will do? That’s right…Not offer credit at all.

The solution? Very simple, actually: Require all new customers without an extensive credit report and sufficient income to have to get a secured card!

That could apply to all new customers of any age. The potential customer would also have to submit a detailed application. Why not? If it can be required for a mortgage or installment loan, why not a credit card? It used to be done, and it could be again. Yes, instant credit would disappear,but it should really should never have been offered by lenders to begin with, IMHO.