Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 690 posts

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#671

Post by potato3732842 »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #519
johnnyanmac wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You picked two odd examples. A beach is debatable as being capable of being opened and closed, and whether or not a person is tresspassing, but parks are generally managed by the state or country. Of course they can close down. They typically close from subset to sunrise.

The idea of a beach closing at night-time was novel to me, when I first came to the US. In the UK beaches are ... just beaches, their status is that of "beach", and access is not controlled at all. Generally there's a fine for being caught sleeping on the beach I think, but that's really to discourage people being swept away.

With a few exceptions for snooty uptight municipalities who've written rules far beyond the norm you're generally allowed on the beach 24/7 on the east cost and access is likewise uncontrolled (except New Jersey). I can't speak to the west coast.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#672

Post by Esophagus4 »

eadmund wrote: post #670
Esophagus4 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that is fine in the abstract: Current 5 year CD APYs are 4.2-4.7%, while current new car auto loan APRs are 5.2-6.7%. There is usually no magic spread to be captured unless you’re willing to take more risk (say, money in equities instead of CDs). Financing a depreciating asset against one that is volatile in the short term (and has seen drawdowns of 20% several times in the last 10 years) is a duration to risk…

> There is usually no magic spread to be captured unless you’re willing to take more risk (say, money in equities instead of CDs). Which is what one should do, provided one believes that the long-term result will be positive. > Financing a depreciating asset against one that is volatile in the short term (and has seen drawdowns of 20% several times in the last 10 years) is a duration to risk mismatch. Financing an as…

All totally valid points. If used responsibly across all those elements, within someone’s budget, with the ability to tolerate the risk… I can see the case for financing. I just think most people don’t quite use car loans that way… hence the proliferation of 72 month+ loans. (But then, they’re adults who can make their own decisions, so fair enough. They would probably say I’m risk averse, anyway.)

> Hey, an extra 1% a year for the duration of one’s working life adds up quite significantly!

I agree - but in this case, you’re not really netting an extra 1% per year forever… in that example, you’re saying you’d have a car payment for your entire working life! And a long period of buying depreciating assets I think is going to hurt a lot more in the long run than the 1% spread :)

That being said, I get that purchases are not always spreadsheet math. So maybe someone is willing to spend a little more over time to drive newer cars, and that’s up to them.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#673

Post by Retric »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #668
Retric wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of that is inflation. Most of what remains is the anomaly in housing prices in 2009 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS Inflation adjusted median US home prices Q4 2024 where 419,300 vs Q4 2006 ~382,00 that isn’t flat but the difference is far less interesting.

Median home prices aren’t very interesting because most of the increase is limited to specific competitive areas, and median US home prices hides that effect. I’m sure houses in deeply rural areas haven’t gotten much more expensive, but it isn’t relevant to me.

Well over half of Americans are living in Urban areas so median here is a measure of urban home prices.

Further average home prices reflects overall economic gains. The top 10%, 1%, 0.1%, etc getting richer buy nicer stuff driving up the average but that says little about overall affordability.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#674

Post by danans »

9rx wrote: post #666
danans wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there really opportunity if you can't afford it? If your argument is that a suburban lifestyle of convenient access to opportunity is not universally affordable given the current configuration of American society, then I'd be in complete agreement. Question is what to do about that, if anything. My preference is to densify the suburbs, allow mixed use development, and add better transit links.

> My preference is to densify the suburbs, allow mixed use development But then you're right back to it being regular city — exactly what the people in the suburbs (supposedly) want to avoid when they choose to live in the suburbs. This is the conundrum that prompted the discussion. The cost of transportation is said to be too high, but at the same time it is said that it is important to preserve the qualities of the…

> But then you're right back to it being regular city — exactly what the people in the suburbs (supposedly) want to avoid when they choose to live in the suburbs.

They don't have to have the density of Manhattan or SF to be better for walkability than they are now.

After all, the walkable boroughs of some of the world's biggest cities were at one point a lot like suburbs (albeit minus the car-centered planning).

Many people who move to suburbs do so because they are priced out of the affluent parts of cities, but often still want to live in a more walkable and mixed-use environment than most suburbs offer today. Suburbs can evolve to meet those preferences. It's not an easy process though, and in many places it is triggering inter-generational conflicts over zoning laws.

And yes, they could potentially meet some of these preferences in a small town like yours - many have - but small town life isn't for everyone for all kinds of reasons as we've discussed.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#675

Post by 9rx »

danans wrote: post #674
9rx wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My preference is to densify the suburbs, allow mixed use development But then you're right back to it being regular city — exactly what the people in the suburbs (supposedly) want to avoid when they choose to live in the suburbs. This is the conundrum that prompted the discussion. The cost of transportation is said to be too high, but at the same time it is said that it is important to preserve the qualities of the…

> But then you're right back to it being regular city — exactly what the people in the suburbs (supposedly) want to avoid when they choose to live in the suburbs. They don't have to have the density of Manhattan or SF to be better for walkability than they are now. After all, the walkable boroughs of some of the world's biggest cities were at one point a lot like suburbs (albeit minus the car-centered planning). Many…

> They don't have to have the density of Manhattan or SF to be better for walkability than they are now.

Right, but it was said that the people don't want walkability at all. I mean, that's how we got here: Wondering why someone wants neither the walkability of the city nor the wide open spaces of the countryside, but instead the crampedness of the city and having to drive everywhere.

I mean, hey, If that's what is up someone's ally, cool. Whatever floats your boat. But the complaining about the the cost of transportation becomes at odds to that. At some point there needs to be a recognition of "you can't have it both ways", no?

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#676

Post by mathgeek »

devmor wrote: post #525
hansvm wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why'd that suck so much? As a software dev couldn't you just pay it off a month or two later?

I’m not sure what software devs make $15 grand a month in disposable income 2 years into their career, but I certainly was not one of them.

Some of the ones in the Bay Area do. Sometimes they don’t realize it’s not the norm.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#677

Post by hansvm »

mathgeek wrote: post #676
devmor wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what software devs make $15 grand a month in disposable income 2 years into their career, but I certainly was not one of them.

Some of the ones in the Bay Area do. Sometimes they don’t realize it’s not the norm.

Yeah, it's pretty common in the Bay. I did project that on wherever they're from.

I also didn't expect $15k-$30k in the jump from "not reliable" to "reliable" cars from somebody worried about a 20% interest rate over a long period of time. I have no idea what their background is, but even at today's prices you can do much better than that.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#678

Post by jjav »

SirMaster wrote: post #634
corford wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renting is not owning (no benefits accrue from asset appreciation). The same calc for ownership is very different. Also would love to know % of population in 1970 that rented versus today. My guess is it's much higher today.

But renting has no property taxes or maintenance costs and should cost a lot less, meaning you can take the money that would have gone to those other things and invest it to earn returns on it. I pay 600/mo in rent, so 7200 a year. A basic house around me would easily be about 7200 in property tax + average annual maintenance costs + increased utility costs + increased insurance. So how am I losing out on anything un…

> But renting has no property taxes or maintenance costs

More accurately, renting has no separate line items for property taxes or maintenance (or insurance or HOA if applicable). But of course the renter is paying for all of that.

> and should cost a lot less

More, not less. Since the renter is paying for all the costs, plus some profit for the owner.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#679

Post by jjav »

smelendez wrote: post #343
9rx wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Average American household budgets are dominated by [...] transportation Huh? Doesn't the average American live in a city? The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people is so that you don't have to worry about transportation; enabling everything you could ever want and need to be found in short walking distance. Transportation is for people in rural areas. Yes, it is expensive, but that…

Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. So a car is necessary and often a car per working adult.

> Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited.

Not every suburb is like that. I live in a pretty remote suburb in Silicon Valley (could be almost called rural) and I can walk to pretty much anything necessary in weekly life. My office, shopping, supermarkets, restaurants, pharmacies, hardware store, movies, library, post office, parks, some doctors.

While I own cars for various hobbies and convenience, they're not stricly necessary. If I had to scale back on spending I could easily live without any cars in this suburb.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#680

Post by beowulfey »

mrguyorama wrote: post #382
beowulfey wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't going to learn to be skeptical or think critically because we've been literally removing that from the curriculum in schools. How can someone be skeptical of something if they don't even know how to be skeptical? Social media runs rampant with a form of skepticism, but I would call that closer to paranoia than critical thinking, and I don't think it's really being helpful in the same way.

> because we've been literally removing that from the curriculum in schools Do you have any actual evidence of this or is this just more parroting of vibes based history? Most of the people I know who say things like "School didn't teach me X" were just not paying attention. Turns out, if your society doesn't care about or value education, kids aren't going to pay attention. Like, some states definitely have mediocre…

Ironically enough this is a good display of critical thinking!

For what it's worth, I learned how to balance a checkbook in fifth grade. My child is not old enough for me to know the curriculum these days but my impression based on talking to my younger colleagues is that it seems to have stopped being taught around the mid-00s. It's hard not to pay attention to something like that--we spent a week with fake money, buying things and having to balance it out. It was fun.

We had a unit (~3 weeks) focused on critical thinking in my seventh grade english class. I do not know for sure if that is still taught the same way. Honestly it is hard to say how widespread it is beyond anecdotal evidence like this because every state has different standards.

Post reply on HN