3 ms·
To OP: This is not a crypto issue, and many of us not obsessed with the subject like me will get annoyed to see it being brought up. You speak true of the subj
by eek2121 1y ago
To OP: This is not a crypto issue, and many of us not obsessed with the subject like me will get annoyed to see it being brought up.
You speak true of the subject matter, however. Except for Klarna, I had good credit (the last time I applied, score FICO was 720 with strong payment history (no negatives, a decade of history of good credit, near and/or zero balances, and a quarter million of personal income) and they wouldn't lend me a dime (I asked for like $100 or something...literally could not be bothered to find my wallet, get my card out, and find the 3 digit number on the back...I also figured it'd be neat to have a new line of credit). I suspect they have some other odd model for tracking you, and if they can't, they reject, so it is likely not as bad as you think.
It's probably much worse. ;)
- andwur 1y agoYou likely ran into anti-fraud provisions with that scenario, specifically identity theft prevention. Having worked at a similar business for years, a trend for high fraud occurrence is squeaky clean credit file-high income applying for low value credit. These have a well above average occurrence of identity theft cases, presumably because the guaranteed affordability test pass combined with low value makes it easy to get the loan and subsequently unlikely anyone will bother to chase it when they identify it as fraudulent. It's easier, and cheaper, as a provider to just reject all originating accounts in this scenario. Similar to applying for a mortgage: if your credit parameters vastly mismatch your affordability you will get a LOT more questions asked.
- kmeisthax 1y agoI guess this is a weird corollary to "the ideal amount of fraud is nonzero" - things that look like a sure bet are actually far more risky.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]