Let's say I'm a government worker affected by the shutdown, and I go to a bank to apply for a loan, like mortgage or credit card. The application asks if I'm employed. I am, nobody fired me yet. It also asks about my annual income. That's not affected by the shutdown either. The bank does not care if I'm being paid today, just that I'm being paid.
So he's technically correct, even though on surface he might appear insensitive.
I'm sorry, but you are talking nonsense because the bank will not give a mortgage loan for everyday expenses. Most likely, your hypothetical worker already has a credit card with an overdue payment. A new one would require a credit card and employer verification. The employer would not provide the verification because it's closed.
Banks do not do employment verification for credit cards, only for mortgages. Credit cards acquisition is based on a combination FICO score and internal acquisition score (which is using credit bureau data and application data).
Even for mortgages, employment verification is often done throug databases like Talx, not by calling employers. Income verification is done by pulling last year's tax returns from the IRS.
Most likely my hypothetical worker does not have a credit card with an overdue payment. You can fact check me by looking up credit card delinquency rates, banks report that to ABA.
It's for "Banks Not Among the 100 Largest in Size", and even that is still 5.85%, so nowhere close to 50%+. Major banks see lower delinquency rates.
This also includes delinquencies up to 180 days past due. Normally no transactions are authorized beyond 60 DPD, so only maybe a third of that is relevant to our discussion. The other two thirds have been rolling through the delinquency buckets towards the default way before government shutdown started.
Also this number includes all credit card customers, employed and unemployed. Unemployment is the most powerful predictor of credit risk, hence delinquency rate among employed government workers should be lower than average.
He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-24 11:43 pm (UTC)So he's technically correct, even though on surface he might appear insensitive.
Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 12:23 am (UTC)Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 12:34 am (UTC)Even for mortgages, employment verification is often done throug databases like Talx, not by calling employers. Income verification is done by pulling last year's tax returns from the IRS.
Most likely my hypothetical worker does not have a credit card with an overdue payment. You can fact check me by looking up credit card delinquency rates, banks report that to ABA.
Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 12:46 am (UTC)Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 12:48 am (UTC)Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 12:58 am (UTC)Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 01:05 am (UTC)I see 2.74% instead.
Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 01:25 am (UTC)Here's a better source. Marginal delinquencies tend to go up in Q1 and they've been already trending up lately.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRCCLOBS
Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 02:37 am (UTC)This also includes delinquencies up to 180 days past due. Normally no transactions are authorized beyond 60 DPD, so only maybe a third of that is relevant to our discussion. The other two thirds have been rolling through the delinquency buckets towards the default way before government shutdown started.
Also this number includes all credit card customers, employed and unemployed. Unemployment is the most powerful predictor of credit risk, hence delinquency rate among employed government workers should be lower than average.
Re: He's not wrong
Date: 2019-01-25 02:51 am (UTC)