     Anonymous1 (Anonymous1) | Friday, September 29, 2000 - 10:49 am 
I read this on www.msnbc.com that BofA is bowing to pressure about it's practice of reporting AND turning people away who are on chexsystems. They will now open a checking account if the chexsystems notation is over 3 years and the person a) doesn't owe money to the account and b) wasn't fraudulent (aka check fraud I guess). They will now warn current account holders that if they bounce another check, or are overdrawn too long, that within 60 days they will be reported to chexsystems. Union Bank and Wells are readressing this too. Finally, consumer pressure pays off. Now if only this will work on the CRAs. |
| Zachary1 (Drcredit) | Friday, September 29, 2000 - 02:37 pm
It will, Anonymous1, if we do this:
Outlaw credit scoring companies that don't provide the exact formulae for any scoring.
Have ONE CENTRAL CREDIT repository controlled strictly by government (maybe the IRS?)
Have a secondary watchdog whose rulings are BINDING on this CRA.
Have a tertiary tribunal (credit court) system, presided over by a judge and jury panel or equivalent, should an appeal be wished.
Have the central CRA give FREE ONLINE ACCESS INSTANTLY for all authorized credit report requests.
Ensure stiff jail and monetary penalties for fraud artists and companies who don't play by the rules (like those investigated by the Securites/Exchange Commission)
Prohibit the CRA from generating any scores, but hold any creditor responsible for their chosen scoring system and full evaluation disclosures.
Ensure that all INSURANCE COMPANIES, all others of the major pillars of the nation's financial system and any others who are NOT creditors are PROHIBITED from using any kind of credit record access and/or scoring for ANY of their products unless it is specifically a lending product.
Until these and other measures are in place, the bandying about of personal information with no accountability will continue to the benefit of those who profit from these loopholes. |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Friday, September 29, 2000 - 05:14 pm
I think that's quite probably the scariest thing I've ever heard.
What's next? We'll need licenses to have children, permits to travel and some way of determining who is likely to try to resist the new regime.
Hey, but technology might provide the answer. We can just develop a scoring model that will indicate who is statistically most likely to not go along with the new plan. Those people can just be executed for the public good.
Of course we can't permit people to speak against the new regime so that'll mean government controlled television, newspapers and Internet. No guns, of course and the police should be able to completely search your home without a warrant to ensure 100% compliance with the new laws.
Oh but don't worry the government will publish the criteria used to determine if you're an enemy of the state. The government is here to help you. Just give up your freedom and we'll take care of you. Heil Hitler. |
| Anonymous1 (Anonymous1) | Friday, September 29, 2000 - 10:32 pm
That is very interesting but I agree that we need to make it illegal for insurance and other types of companies to look at consumer's credit reports unless the service (house, mortgage, etc) makes sense. Why does a health insurance provider need to see my fico? Why does Allstate or AAA need to look at that information? Why can't they just make a determination of the driver's record or the person's health history to determine a premium?
But back on the issue at hand, I hope the class action suit against BofA and the other BIG bank chains hurts em where it counts, their bottom lines. 8 million people can't be forgers and criminals. I do agree with being made to take a course on responsible money management, I agree their should be penalties (loss of ATM priviledges and the like for short periods of time) to teach people a SHORT term lesson on managing the checkbook. I refuse to accept that a draconian measure designed to keep people from getting ANY kind of account (checking/savings) is helping anybody. The damn bank gets it's fees no matter what.
To wrap this up, banks claim they make nothing off of the average checking account. If that is so, then why not get out of the business altogether or make it so a person can't have it unless they keep a minimum in there no matter what. I think these idiots DO make money off of the average joe checking account. The average Joe pays a monthly fee, uses ATMs at other banks or businesses to get money (fees), and if a customer overdrafts, a fee is charged! They are liars and scum who need to be stopped before all we have as choice in the banking industry is BofA, Union and 2 others and NO viable alternatives.
P.S.- I read that more and more consumers are less trusting of banking corporations than ever before. If this is true, why would anybody trust these morons with their stock investments, insurance or other fruits they garnered from the deregulation of their industry? |
| Zachary1 (Drcredit) | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 01:03 pm
That gives a good argument for keeping banking, insurance and investment companies SEPARATE entities rather than the mish-mash crossovers we see today. These are essential pillars holding up the entire financial house of cards we live under today. |
