American Express to judge you based on where you shop...

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27055285/

AmEx rates credit risk by where you live, shop
Credit-card firm confirms members' mortgage lenders also may be a factor

As the global credit crunch reaches from Wall Street to Main Street, guilt by association has become a tool for evaluating the creditworthiness of American Express customers.

Among other criteria, cardholders are seeing limits reduced because of where they live, where they shop and who holds their mortgage.

?Absolutely unbelievable!? said Jesse Gilleland of suburban Washington, D.C., who says revisions of his American Express accounts and credit limits, at least partly for those reasons, could force him to close his once-thriving computer-consulting firm.

A letter sent to Gilleland by American Express, one of the nation?s largest credit-card issuers, includes these reasons why the spending limit on his Platinum Card was reduced:

?Our credit experience with customers who have made purchases at establishments where you have recently used your card.?
?Our analysis of the credit risk associated with customers who have residential loans from the creditor(s) indicated in your credit report.?
Credit-card experts and consumer advocates say that while such practices have been rumored for some time, this is the first time they?ve seen them cited as criteria for a credit limit reduction.

American Express spokeswoman Kim Forde confirmed that the company is analyzing its exposure to risk more closely as it reviews its cardholders? credit profiles, including considerations it has always weighed ? from payment history to credit bureau reports and income.

But, she said, ?We are looking at some other factors, too, in light of the economy. We are looking at consumers holding subprime mortgages (and) those living in areas where there has been a greater deterioration in home prices.?

Asked about the letter to Gilleland, which cites shopping practices and merely obtaining a mortgage from a lender who also loans to other borrowers with "credit risk," Forde said, ?You have to remember that this is one contributing factor. That?s not the sole reason, but it?s certainly data that we?re looking at.?

Limits revised for 20 percent each year
Forde said that in a typical year, American Express changes credit limits for about 20 percent of its cardholders. In recent years, about 80 percent of those members saw their limits raised while 20 percent saw them lowered, she said. Now, the ratio is about 50-50.


Limit reductions have pinched cardholders like Gilleland, who said he counted on three American Express accounts to fund startup and travel costs of his firm, based in Stafford, Va. Earlier this year, American Express shut two of the accounts and began lowering the limit on the third to match the balance as he paid it down. When he saw the letter outlining the reasons, he was stunned. He contacted msnbc.com in response to a solicitation asking small-business owners to talk about their challenges in the current financial crisis.


Gilleland said he has had an American Express Platinum Card for about six years.

?I?ve never had a problem," he said. "They?ve never imposed a limit on me before."





Funny, I always thought if you paid your credit card on time that should be the only factor.
I wonder if I shop at WalMart if my interest rate will go up and if I shop at Neiman-Marcus it will go down?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
don't blame them. good to see a company trying to reduce risk in today's market.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,395
8,558
126
i guess 18 year old males who drive STis shouldn't pay any more for insurance than a 45 year old married mother of 2.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Makes sense as long as they can model it accurately and don't weight it too heavily.

The best way to say fug you, if you don't like it, is to not be an Amex customer.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
It almost seems like a desperate measure to try and optimize risk assessment. I understand the argument about why they are doing it. I just don't think it will help them. In the end, it doesn't seem fair to me either, but this is nothing new when it comes to risk assessment.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Would you consider it discrimination though to lower someone's limits without their knowledge based on criteria that they are not privey or even inclusive in? If the guy in the story has had the card and a sparkling history for 6+ years, he should continue to have the same benefits until he proves that he is incapable of handling the responsibility.

And for those saying that this is great that AmEx is showing responsible restraint in this time of urgency, please explain the 2-3 "pre-approved" mailers I get a week from them and from other companies.

They could cut their operating costs in half if they would stop sending those out considering the cost of printing and mailing them.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
If I am loaning money out for profit, I should use every tool at my disposal to make sure that it's a good investment. We should be lauding AmEx for not making negligent, high-risk loans like every other company that we're bailing out right now. Instead, we're whining about their perfectly legal and sensible business practice. As others have said, if you don't like it, don't do business with them.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Good for Amex, would you rather then extend huge lines of credit to everyone and when they cant pay it back, ask the taxpayer for a bailout?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
if someone has to rely on 3 amex cards to fund their start-up... maybe they should reevaluate their business model.

can't blame american express for lowering their risk.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
I put my credit card in the freezer last night. Best thing I have ever done for myself.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Good for Amex, would you rather then extend huge lines of credit to everyone and when they cant pay it back, ask the taxpayer for a bailout?

Why is it that not approving this practice automatically means that what you are suggesting is the only other option? I think what we want is discrediting those who deserve to be discredited as a result of a bad history. It is the basic principle of innocence until proven guilty. In this case specifically, people are going to be punished for doing nothing wrong.

Now, I'll be honest and say that at the end of the day I really don't care, but the point is seems pretty clear. I believe the margin of error here will be too large and too undeserving to justify itself as actually being a reasonable form of risk assessment.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Good for Amex, would you rather then extend huge lines of credit to everyone and when they cant pay it back, ask the taxpayer for a bailout?

No I wouldn't. I also wouldn't want a company that I am a shareholder in going on $440k management "retreats" or spending hundreds of millions of dollars for naming rights to a sports arena/park or from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on sky boxes to "entertain" clients.

But I don't recall much backlash when stupidity like that is taking place.

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/stadiumnames.html


 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
"Stores where you shop"?

Does this mean that the frugal. practical person buying a set of salt&pepper shakers at Walmart for a buck-ninety-eight is less credit worthy than the spendthrift that buys a set at Nieman-Marcus for a hundred bucks?

I'd love to see the criteria and the math behind it for this one.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,395
8,558
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


And for those saying that this is great that AmEx is showing responsible restraint in this time of urgency, please explain the 2-3 "pre-approved" mailers I get a week from them and from other companies.
you live in a good zip code.

and have you read those things? i saw one the other day that said you're pre-approved!*









*pre-approved to apply

They could cut their operating costs in half if they would stop sending those out considering the cost of printing and mailing them.

doubt it costs that much to print and mail them.




Originally posted by: Xavier434

Why is it that not approving this practice automatically means that what you are suggesting is the only other option? I think what we want is discrediting those who deserve to be discredited as a result of a bad history. It is the basic principle of innocence until proven guilty. In this case specifically, people are going to be punished for doing nothing wrong.
so if someone is completely healthy you don't want them subsidizing the unhealthy?
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


And for those saying that this is great that AmEx is showing responsible restraint in this time of urgency, please explain the 2-3 "pre-approved" mailers I get a week from them and from other companies.
you live in a good zip code.

and have you read those things? i saw one the other day that said you're pre-approved!*









*pre-approved to apply

They could cut their operating costs in half if they would stop sending those out considering the cost of printing and mailing them.

doubt it costs that much to print and mail them.




Originally posted by: Xavier434

Why is it that not approving this practice automatically means that what you are suggesting is the only other option? I think what we want is discrediting those who deserve to be discredited as a result of a bad history. It is the basic principle of innocence until proven guilty. In this case specifically, people are going to be punished for doing nothing wrong.
so if someone is completely healthy you don't want them subsidizing the unhealthy?

I live in Sacramento and I still get piles of those things.



 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,385
1
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Would you consider it discrimination though to lower someone's limits without their knowledge based on criteria that they are not privey or even inclusive in? If the guy in the story has had the card and a sparkling history for 6+ years, he should continue to have the same benefits until he proves that he is incapable of handling the responsibility.

And for those saying that this is great that AmEx is showing responsible restraint in this time of urgency, please explain the 2-3 "pre-approved" mailers I get a week from them and from other companies.

They could cut their operating costs in half if they would stop sending those out considering the cost of printing and mailing them.

You don't get a "pre-approved" mailer for an American Express Platinum card. You are confusing an AMEX Platinum, which is a very selective card, with a regular Visa or MasterCard Platinum.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,395
8,558
126
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I live in Sacramento and I still get piles of those things.

like i said, pre-approved*




*to apply.







those mailers don't mean they've judged you credit worthy.
 

racolvin

Golden Member
Jul 26, 2004
1,254
0
0
One of the items mentioned scrutiny of who held your mortgage - how is that within my control? I mean, say I start out with my mortgage from my local credit union or bank. 6 months later they sell that mortgage to another company that is one of those that AMEX thinks "looks bad" on my credit. Why should my credit limit be reduced over something I have no control over whatsoever, especially if my payments on said credit card have been exemplary.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,411
32,995
136
Why would anyone care what Amex thinks or does? Annual fees? What are those?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Good for Amex, would you rather then extend huge lines of credit to everyone and when they cant pay it back, ask the taxpayer for a bailout?

Why is it that not approving this practice automatically means that what you are suggesting is the only other option? I think what we want is discrediting those who deserve to be discredited as a result of a bad history. It is the basic principle of innocence until proven guilty. In this case specifically, people are going to be punished for doing nothing wrong.

Now, I'll be honest and say that at the end of the day I really don't care, but the point is seems pretty clear. I believe the margin of error here will be too large and too undeserving to justify itself as actually being a reasonable form of risk assessment.

What about auto insurance? Using that logic a 16 year old with a new mustang should be insured at a much cheaper rate than a middle aged family man who got an improper lane change ticket a few years ago.