Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Facebook Social Networks The Almighty Buck

Saying "Wasted" On Facebook Can Affect Your Credit Score (ajc.com) 386

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: According to a recent report by the Financial Times (paywalled), some of the top credit rating companies are now using people's social media accounts to assess their ability to repay debt. "If you look at how many times a person says 'wasted' in their profile, it has some value in predicting whether they're going to repay their debt," Will Lansing, chief executive at credit rating company FICO, told the Financial Times. "It's not much, but it's more than zero." According to the Financial Times, both FICO and TransUnion have had to find "alternative ways" to assess people who don't have a traditional credit profile — including people who haven't borrowed enough to give creditors an idea of what kind of risk they pose.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saying "Wasted" On Facebook Can Affect Your Credit Score

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:13AM (#50861187)
    According to lenders this makes me a credit risk.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:27AM (#50861231)

      This entirely.

      The credit systems is quite screwed up. I worked a shitty McJob full time during summer and part time during school (except for the last year where I decided to focus on my studies). Managed to be one of the very few people with a degree and no debt without Mom and Dad paying for it.. and was proud of this. Got a decent job, was still living at home so built up some decent savings, payed for most stuff with cash or debit. Eventually decided to get a credit card, and yup, had to deposit a chunk of cash that I couldn't touch for 6 months before they'd give me one. This would seem entirely reasonable to me, except by this point my sister was in university.. student loans (in her defense, her program was many times more expensive than mine..), and no income (she worked summers but not during the school year).. and banks (including mine, RBC) were practically throwing pre-approvals at her.

      Fast forward about 10 years, I now own a house, have a mortgage, a line of credit, credit cards.. basically if I added up all the credit I have available to me it would be multiple times what I make in a year) .. and I get calls all the time from the big banks trying to give me even more.

      There was a good(ish) documentary a few years called Maxed out on Debt... if you ignore the annoying drama stuff in the middle, there's some good frank interviews that explain a lot of it. They _want_ people who arn't completely broke but can't afford the credit so they'll keep making minimum payments forever. They want to load you down with more credit than you can afford so you get on that treadmill.

      I'm kinda on the fence with regards to how I feel about this. One one hand, the banks are doing some shady stuff and directly trying to set people up for financial disaster for their own benefit. On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means. Personally I've managed to never pay interest on any of mine. I guess it's gotta be a middle ground. Much as I hate nanny-state type stuff, I feel like this is one area we may need the government to come in and save people from themselves by restricting how much credit a person can hold based on income or something.

      • They _want_ people who arn't completely broke but can't afford the credit so they'll keep making minimum payments forever. They want to load you down with more credit than you can afford so you get on that treadmill.

        I'm kinda on the fence with regards to how I feel about this. One one hand, the banks are doing some shady stuff and directly trying to set people up for financial disaster for their own benefit.

        Yep, every dollar of debt you take puts $10 back into the sytem which they can then lend out to ten more suckers. Gotta love it.

        • "Only" ten for one? Can be a lot more.
      • by Aristos Mazer ( 181252 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @02:37AM (#50861413)

        > On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means.

        If you look at a lot of the ads that they send us, those ads suggest strongly that they're making the offer because it *is* within your means. These people with advanced math degrees say you're a great person to get this credit... it's easy to start thinking they understand something about your finances that you've missed if you don't really grasp the terms "compound interest" and "APR" etc. I think the sales pitch often crosses the line into dishonesty. Not always, but frequently.

        • by Nutria ( 679911 )

          they're making the offer because it *is* within your means...

          to pay the monthly minimum. Which is exactly what AC wrote.

          • by chipschap ( 1444407 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @03:11AM (#50861485)

            I too have 800+ credit scores, very good savings, and a paid-off home. Therein lies the problem. I don't have any debt any more, and while I use credit cards for nearly everything, I never carry a balance beyond the payment due dates. I've been retired for a while and have a steady pension income that is quite adequate.

            So I asked for an increase in my credit card limit, and was turned down, with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt." Not "your credit isn't good enough"--- they as much as said my credit was just fine.

            In other words they see that in their industry I am, and will remain, what is called a "deadbeat." This does not mean a non-payer, this means someone who PAYS and doesn't carry balances, thereby denying the banks the opportunity to collect interest at extortionate interest rates.

            Is there something wrong with this whole system?

            • by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @04:00AM (#50861573)

              with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt."

              Maybe what they really mean is "our actuaries have discovered that people who don't carry any debt but suddenly ask for an increase are statistically more likely to skip out".

              Is there something wrong with this whole system?

              Depends on what the purpose of "the whole system" is.

              • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

                Credit cards aren't a system to make payments easier, they are a system to make getting credit easier.
                If you're only using them for payments, they're not making money off of you (or atleast not a lot).
                Getting a bigger credit limit only to use it for larger payments just means you cost them more.

                • by Githaron ( 2462596 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @11:01AM (#50863069)

                  Credit cards aren't a system to make payments easier.

                  Except they are. Credit card companies charge merchants fees in order to be part of their network. As long as you are spending with their cards, they are making money by having you as a customer regardless of the fact that you are not allowing your balance to incur interest.

            • In other words they see that in their industry I am, and will remain, what is called a "deadbeat." This does not mean a non-payer, this means someone who PAYS and doesn't carry balances, thereby denying the banks the opportunity to collect interest at extortionate interest rates.

              Is there something wrong with this whole system?

              There is nothing wrong with the system. You're assuming the point of the bank (or credit card) is to offer you a service. It's not. The bank/credit card is lending money for the

            • You're not looking hard enough for a new credit card company. My credit union offers a doubling of my max limit every 6 months, if I want it, and I've taken advantage of it until I'm at a max that I feel is more than enough. (it's a ridiculous number now) I too pay off every month, and my score is just barely over 700.

              The system is fine. If your bank isn't offering you the service you want, go to one that does. Credit unions are a good place to start.

            • "Is there something wrong with this whole system?"

              Considering the laws are bought and paid for by the same people who are raping Americans with this stuff, yes, there is something SEVERELY wrong with the system. Corporations are NOT people, that SC decision was a HUGE mistake

            • The trouble is you're not buying a car and another house. Old cars break down a lot. For most people they start getting little nuisances at the 3-5 mark and getting stranded at the 7-10 mark. So for most folks not buying a car every 3-7 years is a sign of something not right. As for houses, you're not building any equity. Property is too good an investment opportunity to pass up for people who aren't millionaires. If you're having trouble with credit you're probably not a millionaire :P.
            • The credit card companies cannot afford for everyone to retain a balance on their cards. They still get money for every dollar you spend. There was some other reason for this and perhaps it was your age / retirement status. They obviously cannot use that as an excuse to decline you, so they use one that cannot be considered discrimination.
      • by Nutria ( 679911 )

        Much as I hate nanny-state type stuff, I feel like this is one area we may need the government to come in and save people from themselves

        So you want people to share their income and net worth with either the banks or the federal government (since how else would "they" determine whether or not they can offer you credit).

        • My bank doesn't appear to even share my income with themselves. When I applied for a mortgage, one of the things that I had to prove was that I'd been paying my rent regularly for the last three months (yes, they really did only care about three months). I thought this would be easy: I'd been paying by standing order, from an account with them, so they could easily look at when the standing order was set up, and the fact that it had been paid every month for the last few years. Apparently they couldn't -
          • If the mortgage decision was just between you and your bank and your bank actually took a financial risk, like it used to be, they'd mostly be relying on their own information.

            But mortgages aren't really made by banks anymore, they are simply highly paid data collectors; those mortgages will eventually be held by the federal government. For your bank to certify to the federal government how much you pay in rent or what your income is is just an additional and unnecessary legal risk. It is simpler and safer

      • T

        I'm kinda on the fence with regards to how I feel about this. One one hand, the banks are doing some shady stuff and directly trying to set people up for financial disaster for their own benefit. On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means. Personally I've managed to never pay interest on any of mine. I guess it's gotta be a middle ground. Much as I hate nanny-state type stuff, I feel like this is one area we may need the government to come in and save people from themselves by restricting how much credit a person can hold based on income or something.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Shady indeed. Missing a single payment (due to a bank clerk error, not mine) and Chase upped my interest rate from almost nothing to 30%...which is evidently illegal in NY, if this site is accurate http://www.lectlaw.com/files/b... [lectlaw.com] and yet they do it anyway.

        I paid the fee for missing a payment and closed the account so for me impact was limited but for people caught in the trap 30% is, to say the least, abusive.

        Although my understanding is imperfect as I'm a transplant to

      • by geggo98 ( 835161 )

        I'm kinda on the fence with regards to how I feel about this. One one hand, the banks are doing some shady stuff and directly trying to set people up for financial disaster for their own benefit. On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means. Personally I've managed to never pay interest on any of mine. I guess it's gotta be a middle ground. Much as I hate nanny-state type stuff, I feel like this is one area we may need the government to come in and save people from themselves by restricting how much credit a person can hold based on income or something.

        Well, personal responsibility is very important. But the human nature has its limits. For example while you are personally responsible what you read and what not, spam mails are still not acceptable. And while everyone is personally responsible for not giving away personal information, fishing is beyond these limits.

        In my opinion it's similar with credits: Advertising is OK up to a certain limit. And everyone is personally responsible for fact checking. But there is a certain border, and the banks are at le

      • I feel like this is one area we may need the government to come in and save people from themselves by restricting how much credit a person can hold based on income or something.

        Whenever you say "There ought to be a law to stop that", if it's not for the purpose of preventing imminent harm, you're probably wrong. In this case, there's one simple trick which would solve this problem for everyone, for ever. Make debt the responsibility of the lender. That is the only way to stop lenders from preying on people who can't really afford debt, and to get them to only extend credit to people who can afford to pay them back. School ought to be free; if you took out the worthless executives,

      • by hattig ( 47930 )

        They _want_ people who arn't completely broke but can't afford the credit so they'll keep making minimum payments forever.

        Of course. It comes down to affordability, and they want people to max out their credit to the point where they can barely make the minimum payments. I bet they call this a "sweet spot of consumer debt".

        For example, once you have a bunch of credit card debt, you will realise at some point that the minimum payments are weighing you down, and you will consider maybe getting a long-term loan to consolidate the debt to make things more affordable. E.g., 30K of credit card debt might have a minimum repayment of

      • You should have gotten a credit card while you were in college. For some reason, banks are unusually generous with college students. You can get access to credit you could not otherwise get. Once you're done with school they evaluate you just the same as any other working class person.
    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:47AM (#50861283)

      According to lenders this makes me a credit risk.

      Because you are. People with no debt are less likely to pay off debt once credit is extended, than someone with a track record of making regular payments on an existing debt. Credit score criteria are not just randomly pulled out of a hat. They are based on hard data.

      • by Anrego ( 830717 ) * on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:57AM (#50861313)

        For all that people rail on about how stupid and illogical the credit score system is, it does generally seem to work in most cases. People who are financially responsible do tend to end up with good credit scores, and those who arn't tend to have bad ones.

        The only area it's weak in is people who manage to get into their adult life without needing credit, but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.

        And building credit isn't hard. You don't have to pay interest, just get a no fee credit card, use it for some of your purchases and pay it off every month. Most banks will give you a credit card if you leave a deposit covering the limit with them for a certain amount of time, or you can get someone to co-sign (usually a parent).

        • The only area it's weak in is people who manage to get into their adult life without needing credit, but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.

          And building credit isn't hard. You don't have to pay interest, just get a no fee credit card, use it for some of your purchases and pay it off every month. Most banks will give you a credit card if you leave a deposit covering the limit with them for a certain amount of time, or you can get someone to co-sign (usually a parent).

          Exactly what I'm going through now. Up until a year ago I paid for everything with cash or debit but I get the feeling it'll be awhile before I can pay for a house in full. My idea of "If I can't pay for it right now, I don't need it" kinda screwed me for awhile.

        • by Nutria ( 679911 )

          and pay it off every month

          They ding you (not much) for that.

          Every so often, even when I have the money, I take the bank up on a balance transfer offer. The trick is to pay it off just when the 0% incentive expires. (A web bill pay service makes it easy.)

          That way, you remind them that you can pay your CC bills, while simultaneously not having to pay the 12+% APR.

        • You don't have to pay interest, just get a no fee credit card, use it for some of your purchases and pay it off every month

          People who don't do this and are proud of not using credit seem to be indicating that they're pretty poor at financial planning to me. I got a credit card as soon as I was legally able to (which had a very low credit limit, as I was a student with no real income). By the time I was earning, it had a big enough limit to cover all of my monthly expenses (though, unfortunately, I couldn't pay rent with it) and 1% cash back. By using the credit card, I get to have one more month's worth of salary in my savin

        • but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.

          I still don't quite see the connection. How is the situation above any different from a person who kept paying off 2 digit monthly ballances off of a credit card for the last two years? Why should you trust that one with 300k? look at it the other way around - what are the most common traits for people who declared bankrupcy? Large outstanding debts, little savings, no safety nets (i.e. disability insurance or other applicable insurances), unstable income etc.

          These are BTW things that European banks look in

        • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

          Exactly. Credit scores are based on your track record of managing your credit. If you've never had credit (a credit card, a loan, etc.) then you have no credit score.

          Lenders treat someone with no credit history the same way an employer treats an employee that has no job experience. You're not going to get an 800+ credit score just because you have and job and pay for everything up front, just like you're not going to start out as VP of operations fresh out of school.

        • by houghi ( 78078 )

          The way you build a credit score in Belgium is to live in Belgium.

          The rest is comparing incoming and outgoing monies.

          Having extra cards will lower your score. How does this work?

          Say you have an income of 1500 netto a month. Obviously you need to give proof of that.You pay rent of 500 a month. Deduction of living of e.g. 250 a month. (not sure what the numbers are). That leaves 750 that you could spend on paying back credit.

          You buy a car on credit and you pay back 500 a month for that, that means you have 25

      • >They are based on hard data

        They are based on hard aggregate data, not individual patterns of behaviour.

        People with no history of debt are less likely to pay it off because on average people with no history of debt have been refused credit because they have no money.

        Now, you may ask why someone with a healthy savings account might need credit. In theory, they probably don't, but the whole payments system now revolves around credit. Cash is a either a financial disadvantage if you're trying to book

      • Actually this makes sense if you think it through.

        One of the key indicators lenders are looking for is a change in your financial situation, which they use your behavior as a proxy.

        If you are routinely paying off all your cards, and suddenly you want to spend $100k, it's fishy because it hints at something going on.

        Maybe a sudden medical diagnosis will push you into bankruptcy.
        Maybe a lay off will mean you'll borrow as much as possible before missing payments and going into bankruptcy
        Maybe you just want to

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @02:05AM (#50861345)
      I used to do phone support for Capital One credit card and they determined that if the first transaction you make with your card is cash, it's likely you will max the card and not pay it back.

      What happens is you get your new card, you go to the ATM, get declined, phone in then CS tells you it's for 'security reasons' to 'protect you from fraud' then asked you to fax in 3 or 4 pieces of ID to 'verify yourself'. After that, they tell you the information was illegible and that they can't reinstate your card.

      I can understand them declining people who are a likely risk but literally telling them a bold faced lie is what kind of surprised me. They used to refer to Capital One as "Cap One" for short, I'm not sure if they caught how appropriate "Capone" was to describe the way they do business.
    • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @03:02AM (#50861461) Homepage Journal

      It's not necessarily that you're a bad risk, it could be that you have low profit potential because you'll probably pay it off in time, not roll it over, etc.

      Somebody's bonus depends on you getting stung for fees & extra interest, you heartless bastard!

      • by Nutria ( 679911 )

        low profit potential because you'll probably pay it off in time

        They also make money in transaction fees from vendors.

      • by havana9 ( 101033 )

        It's not necessarily that you're a bad risk, it could be that you have low profit potential because you'll probably pay it off in time, not roll it over, etc.

        I had both a debit card (for ATM and POS) and a Visa that was a charge card only, ie. I had to repay in full every month, and if no money was present on the associated then the card debt was repayed going overdraft.
        I have also a securities account with the bank, so they know i have some of their and other corportation bonds, so I suppose they know I could stay easily out of debt.
        A day I lost the old credit card, so I asked for a new one. The old credit card was of course disabled so a new card was given

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      Lenders are the clients of the credit reporting system, you are merely the product. Lenders make more money if they can charge you a higher interest rate.

      Therefore, credit reporting agencies have a vested interest in biasing everyone's credit risk upwards because it makes *their* scoring system more profitable.

      I have no doubt that banks internally rank the loan profitability of all the credit reporting agencies. If banks analyze their loan data by credit reporting agency used and agency A and B both have

    • because you're not buying a Car and a House, which are both debt. These are things every person wants. Used cars break down a lot (I'm stuck driving a clunker, so I speak from bitter experience). With few exceptions nobody who can afford it doesn't buy a new car every 3-5 years because of this. As for a house if your an American you don't rent because you want the equity on the home. Also, that equity is a large part of what improves your credit score

      Now, you might still be low risk. You might live next
  • by darkain ( 749283 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:16AM (#50861193) Homepage

    I just wasted some n00bs in that FPS match, y0!!!

    OH SHIT, THERE WENT MY CREDIT SCORE.... but at least I scored in the game!!! (but yet to score in real life...)

    • When your means of assessing risk (housing bubble anyone?) is more or less reading tea leaves and cat entrails, looking for word associations on social media is hardly surprising.

      That most financial institutions would have crashed and burned with the last recession isn't surprising either.

      Look at this as proof that another round of bailouts are coming, with bankers stating with a straight face "never saw wasted on his facebook page, so I thought he was a good risk" when student debit becomes the next reamin

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 )

        "never saw wasted on his facebook page, so I thought he was a good risk" when student debit becomes the next reaming of the taxpayer.

        Nah, how much extra taxes did you pay because of TARP? If government spending goes up 20%, or down 20%, it won't affect your taxes. It will affect how much the government borrows, and maybe someday that will blow up, but right now expenses are dissociated from income....it just changes the number in the debt column.

        • Then logically, no one paying taxes would only mean the government borrows more, and since expenses are dissociated from income; no problems, right?

          It will affect how much the government borrows...

          Which has no effect on the interest rates that anyone else pays.

    • I just wasted some n00bs in that FPS match, y0!!!

      OH SHIT, THERE WENT MY CREDIT SCORE.... but at least I scored in the game!!! (but yet to score in real life...)

      Yep the system works.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I just lost to some douchbag on Counterstrike, so I created a fake Facebook profile for him and filled his timeline with posts about getting wasted, and then joined the KKK Facebook group and made friends with some neo nazis.

  • by frup ( 998325 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:21AM (#50861207)

    Please revert to the terminology of trashed. This is in relation to bug that was found in the social media freedom index. Testing so far reports it temporarily fixes the problem. Stay tuned for further updates.

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:22AM (#50861215) Journal

    The only winning move is not to play.

    • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:40AM (#50861263)
      Yeah, starting with the credit companies.
      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        In Belgium Credit Scores work differently.

        Each credit and loan is noted at the National Bank. So each company giving credit sees how much credit uyou have (not with what company)
        If you negected to pay a credit, you will be put on a black list. No new credit is possible.

        If you take a new loan/credit, you have to provide proof of your income and e.g. tell how much rent you pay.

        So the credit company sees your income and sees what goes out. Risk calculation is then very easy.

        Now if you give a loan and the perso

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Yes some very interesting groups collected vast amounts of the early and emerging/defunct/still used social media 2.0 sites.
      Every public face, name, tag, link, connection, comment can be found for a price from the private sector. Great for the private investigators, gov and journalists. Now all that is been shared to create a credit score. As for "don't have a traditional credit profile" was that not the origins of the "no income, no job and no assets" loans that worked out so well?

      The loan itself is
    • The only winning move is not to play.

      Which makes it difficult to buy your own home if you're not independently wealthy.

      • Well... Usually when you will be forced to pay three houses to have one as goes on here (ludicrous interest rates, "taxes", even plain fraud), it is best not to take the trouble of trying to buy a house.
        • Well... Usually when you will be forced to pay three houses to have one as goes on here (ludicrous interest rates, "taxes", even plain fraud), it is best not to take the trouble of trying to buy a house.

          Have to disagree, sorry. Better to pay X (including interest) to buy a home and have something at the end of the term vs. pay X in rent and have nothing at the end of the same term.

  • by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:23AM (#50861219)

    has wasted their time.

  • by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:32AM (#50861239)

    Its possible to come up with algorithms that are statistically valid, but discriminatory. For example, in the US African Americans are on average lower income than whites,so it it is likely that average they are less able to repay debts. Anything that correlates with race might statistically be valid, but is racist and if done explicitly would violate all sorts of laws. How do you prove that you are not using proxies for race, or other protected classes in an analysis like this.

    Systems that analyze the behavior of friends have a similar problem: people from disadvantaged cultures will have a more difficult time receiving loans, getting jobs etc, not because of what they personally did, but because of what people of their culture did. This is the basis of racism.

    • For example, in the US African Americans are on average lower income than whites,so it it is likely that average they are less able to repay debts.

      Why is that? If the loan amount was the same that may be true, but there's no reason why a less wealthy person can't repay a similarly small loan, any more or less than a wealthy person with a huge loan.
      Rich people go broke too.

    • by Nutria ( 679911 )

      How do you prove that you are not using proxies for race, or other protected classes in an analysis like this.

      Simple: demonstrate that you also red-line certain white neighborhoods, or show how many white people you decline.

  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:33AM (#50861241) Homepage

    I was Wa$t3d last night.

  • by thinkwaitfast ( 4150389 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @01:56AM (#50861307)
    if you don't have a facebook account?
    • Probably increases it immensely. It shows you can see that costs of using Facebook are far greater than the benefits it offers. A person who can make such a judgement is likely better at managing their finances compared with somebody who willingly hands over their information in exchange for the opportunity to broadcast aspects of their personal lives to the world.
      • It shows you can see that costs of using Facebook are far greater than the benefits it offers.

        Really? Tell me the cost and tell me the benefit. The way I see it is exactly the opposite.

    • The article says that it's used to judge people that have never had credit ever. If you already have a credit card, it doesn't really apply to you. I'd say it doesn't apply, but I'm sure there's a variable in an equation somewhere that has an effect but is so minor that it's almost 0 on an account that already has credit.

      If you've never had credit ever, then you're subject to the same terms that creditors have always had with new applicants. Get a cosigner, get student account, get a secured CC, get a check

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        The article says that it's used to judge people that have never had credit ever. If you already have a credit card, it doesn't really apply to you. I'd say it doesn't apply, but I'm sure there's a variable in an equation somewhere that has an effect but is so minor that it's almost 0 on an account that already has credit.

        Basically the creditors are wondering if you're going to be a responsible person. If you already have a credit history - a credit card with a history of on time payments, that's generally a

    • Maybe you could create one to game the system the other way around. I just wonder what you'd have to post - probably something like "I just had to pay the interest on my credit card fifth time in a row. Damn, why am I always one day late!". Instant credit score!
  • ...are getting burned by publically spewing out their thoughts and life details? I'm cool with that.
  • by GrandCow ( 229565 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @02:31AM (#50861403)

    "Lansing said FICO is working with credit card companies to use several different methods for deciding what size loans people can handle, and using non-traditional sources like social media allows them to collect information on people who don't have an in-depth credit history. According to the FT, both FICO and TransUnion have had to find alternative ways to assess people who don't have a traditional credit profile -- including people who haven't borrowed enough to give creditors an idea of what kind of risk they pose."

    So this has a nonzero effect on your credit score, but for anyone with a legitimate history (aka any credit card or loan ever) the effect will be so small that it would be considered negligible. What the hell do you people want? If I was an employer looking up peoples names on Facebook, like is common these days, and found out that the person was posting pictures of getting high/drunk on a regular basis or posting really horrible comments, I'd refuse to hire them too. The same applies to credit cards. Some random person with no references walks into my bank and says, "Hey give me $1000, I'm good for it". What should my response be, seriously?

    "Can you prove in any way that I can depend on you to pay me back?"

    If you don't want to be judged by your social profile, make it private or don't fucking post it in the first place.

  • obviously this is flawed for so many reasons.
    "I just wasted xxx hours at the DMV waiting in line"
    probably counts too, I imagine

    • That's ok. It's facebook. Most of the idiots there would probably write "I got so waisted last night" anyway.
  • Obviously, if you "wasted" an afternoon, then you are a greater insurance (auto, life, health, ...) risk.

  • Maybe all top universities should study Perfection Wasted [typepad.com] by John Updike, and encourage online discussion. Just watch the demographic change and the measurement become useless.
  • Facebook privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wootery ( 1087023 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @06:59AM (#50861973)

    But if you lock-down your Facebook account properly, how can they have any idea if you're using the word 'wasted'? Do they pay Facebook for unlimited access or something?

    The article doesn't even think to mention this, and I'm surprised no-one here seems to have mentioned it either.

    • If you use the word "wasted" AND you are incapable of locking down your FB account, you probably ARE likely to default on your debt.

    • Re:Facebook privacy (Score:5, Informative)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @08:20AM (#50862153) Homepage

      THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION! How can the article not address this?

      Do they pay Facebook for unlimited access or something?

      I can think of a few ways:

      First, if you install any Facebook games/apps, they mine your data. I believe that is the entire purpose of them. You would have to read the individual EULAs to see what they gather. This seems like the easiest way because they can get everything.

      According to this article from 2012 "Facebook is Using You" [nytimes.com] they do give out aggregate data, which can affect your credit score.

      Your application for credit could be declined not on the basis of your own finances or credit history, but on the basis of aggregate data — what other people whose likes and dislikes are similar to yours have done. If guitar players or divorcing couples are more likely to renege on their credit-card bills, then the fact that you’ve looked at guitar ads or sent an e-mail to a divorce lawyer might cause a data aggregator to classify you as less credit-worthy. When an Atlanta man returned from his honeymoon, he found that his credit limit had been lowered to $3,800 from $10,800. The switch was not based on anything he had done but on aggregate data. A letter from the company told him, “Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped have a poor repayment history with American Express.”

    • by gsslay ( 807818 )

      It's more of a two step process. First you have to be insane enough to have effectively a public facebook profile, open to credit rating companies to browse, and secondly say "wasted" in your updates.

      It's a close run thing, but I'd say the first step is more an indication of a bad risk.

  • There's this plausible view of the future where everything you say and write will be monitored and processed, and will be followed up with actions. Those who perform the actions will have no responsibility for it. If their actions are unsuitable it's not their problem. You should have controlled your words better to avoid triggering action. It doesn't matter how good or bad their filters are, you just have to adapt.

    It could be different. Imagine a future terrorism watchlist where you're able to sue for dama

  • Wasted my time.

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.

Working...