Data Mining and Credit Profiling: How Lenders Lure You to Borrow
Tuesday, 28th October 2008 (by J.D. Roth) Although responsibility for every penny of debt ultimately rests with the borrower, lenders have developed tempting baits to lure consumers into their traps. A recent New York Times article by Brad Stone describes a system that works against Americans, not for them. Using sophisticated data-mining algorithms, banks and other financial institutions craft tailor-made offers that many find difficult to resist. Stone writes:
The American information economy has been evolving for decades. Equifax, for example, has been compiling financial histories of consumers for more than a century. Since 1970, use of that data has been regulated by the Federal Trade Commission under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
But Equifax and its rivals started offering new sets of unregulated demographic data over the last decade — not just names, addresses and Social Security numbers of people, but also their marital status, recent births in their family, education history, even the kind of car they own, their television cable service and the magazines they read.
Data miners use this information to create specialized databases, which they sell to lenders. One database might contain a list of people who make a modest salary but have many children, for example. Another might feature wealthy widows with small houses. Based on previous market research, a lender can target specific offers to these groups with the knowledge that many people will take the bait.
For a glimpse at how one company collates data, check out Niches 2.0 from Equifax [PDF]. From the brochure:
This tool will give you a complete A to Z picture of your customers and prospects and make it easier to craft the kind of targeted communications that make people feel like you are talking to them individually…The power of Niches is that it clusters information at the household level, unlike geo-demographic systems that base information at the ZIP + 4 level. Niches 2.0 help you target your marketing message, choose premiums to fit your customers, and identify cross-sell opportunities.
If you’ve ever bought a home, you’ve probably encountered one form of this. As soon as you taken out a mortgage, you’re inundated with offers for credit cards, home equity loans, and “buyers clubs”. But that’s child’s play.
Stone says that lenders don’t just use existing information about your life: “Data compilers and banks also employ a variety of methods to estimate the likelihood that people will need new debt, even before they know it themselves.”
These predictive models become increasingly precise as each group of people does or does not take the bait. Researchers hone their algorithms and refine the data. With each pass, the pitch becomes more effective, more persuasive, and more people are led to borrow and spend.
The companies that collect and market the data defend the practice, of course — they believe they’re offering consumers a service. I’m not convinced. If I hand a cold beer to a thirsty alcoholic on a hot day, does that make me a Samaritan? If he drinks it, do I bear any responsibility for what might happen?
Stone’s article is part of a series called The Debt Trap, which explores the surge in consumer debt and the lenders who made it possible. Past articles include:
- Given a shovel, Americans dig deeper in debt (which we discussed in July)
- With advertising, banks encouraged consumers to go deeper into debt
- Borrowers and banks: A great divide
These articles remind me of Maxed Out, a 2007 film about the credit industry [my review]. Though Maxed Out neglects the personal responsibility side of the equation, its profile of conniving credit tactics is damning.
Note: To fight targeted advertising, take steps to stop junk mail in its tracks.
[The New York Times: Banks mine data and woo troubled borrowers, via e-mail from Patricia]
This article is about Credit Cards, Debt, News





I read that NYT article when it first came out, I wish the NYT had included steps that consumers can take to get off these financial services mailing lists. 1-888-OPT-OUT and there are other ways to tell companies to leave you alone. Yes they are still collecting data on me but I now don’t have to spend 10 minutes every night shredding all those offers.
loading....
I think it’s great that articles like this draw attention to some of the bad practices the credit industry and the banking industry lure you into doing.
The more education to everyone the better – let’s hope people read it and take notice.
loading....
Thinking out loud, the way to make money is to get people into just as much debt as they can afford to pay back. Too much, and they will go bankrupt and you won’t get a return on your investment. Too little and you won’t make as much money as you should. Public companies have a duty to make money for their shareholders – it’s their primary purpose.
This means that stuff like this is essentially an inevitable product of a capitalist system and an information economy. I’m not sure that there are any Americans who would like to do without either one of those.
The usual thing to do is to regulate in some way so that these things were harder or impossible for people to do. Reducing the flow of information would be one way. Or increasing the education provided to consumers would be another.
loading....
Excellent point, Sam. I just added a link at the end of the post for a resource that can help people stop junk mail, and not just from credit card companies.
loading....
Overall, I agree with your point, but I also see the value in such targetted marketing.
If I’m in the market for something pricey, say a new camera, then I’m knee deep in research about which one to get. At that time, I welcome marketing regarding cameras in my mail, much more than another 20% Bed, Bath, and Beyond coupon.
Ultimately, I still make the decision on what to buy and when. Still, your analogy about giving a beer to an alcoholic is valid. There just needs to be some balance there.
loading....
Ayrk wrote: There just needs to be some balance there.
I think that’s true. And I wonder if the current financial crisis might not prompt lenders to exercise some of that balance. Their tactics have, in a way, backfired on them. Sure they’ve lured many people into debt, but in a way they went too far, and now some of these folks cannot repay their debts. We’re already hearing that lenders are being more selective, and we can only hope that means they’re not targeting the weak.
loading....
“We’re already hearing that lenders are being more selective, and we can only hope that means they’re not targeting the weak.”
According to Maxed Out, that is where the lenders make all of their money—off the poor and the weak. Not from the people who pay off their cards responsibly.
I still think that the best way to combat these companies is with a decent personal finance course requirement in high school. Students should see a movie like Maxed Out and learn about how these companies profile you, especially since they’ll be bombarded with credit card offers in college. It may not work for everyone, but I know it would have worked for me. I graduated in the top 1 percent of my class, yet I had no clue how much trouble a credit card could become when I signed up for one in college.
loading....
Don’t think lenders aren’t using some of the same tactics they’ve always used, they are just being more selective of their victims. My husband and I just refinanced our current home (last week). We wanted to refinance for the exact amount we owed rather, we weren’t planning on taking any equity. So the banker ran our credit(which is excellent) and looked at our assets and the equity in our home and then offered us $70k more than we wanted to borrow. He said it was equity in our home and we were welcome to take it.
So its the same old scheme – give people more than they want (only this time they make sure you can pay it back). I might add the actually equity in my home is about $20k lower, so the bank was appraising my home high in order to offer me more money. BTW, we didn’t take the extra money – who’d want the tax burden when we didn’t want the cash anyway? But its the same old game – banks are just making a bit more careful gamble on who they will loan money too. We’re a pretty good risk and they wanted to give us more than we wanted.
But I have found that most bankers if you sit them down and get to know them will give you honest advice. It just takes finding a local bank that has some scruples and isn’t hell-bent on railroading every customer they have. You’ll know what these banks are because they will still be open in another year rather than gobbled up by someone else.
loading....
optoutpreescreen.com Do it now.
The issue is really much deeper than people getting into debt. These niches can be used for nefarious purposes. For instance, the lists of “suffering seniors” who played lottery getting targeted by scammers who bilked their bank accounts by running forged checks through their Wachovia accounts. (I was glad to see Wachovia taken down in this financial crisis)
Loved “Maxed Out” by the way. Nothing about the subprime mortgage mess, and the subsequent credit crunch, has surprised me at all because I watched that movie and could say, “You know, we saw that mess in Maxed Out.”
loading....
Ooooh, I love that analogy at the end. Offering somebody a product doesn’t mean you’re doing the world a service just because they’re likely to buy it.
loading....
I’ve always been a huge fan of shredding/burning junk mail without opening it. It doesn’t matter how targeted of a pitch the sender has. I’m not going to give them the satisfaction of reading it.
Why do people read junk mail anyways? There are so many fabulous books (and blogs) out there.
loading....
You are absolutely right. Borrowers are responsible for their own debts, but the lending industry is so aggressive in their targeted marketing that they clearly bear some responsibility.
It amazes me how often I hear people in debt say that they thought their debt level would be manageable because they didn’t think that the bank would lend them more then they could handle.
I have heard that one’s maximum credit card limit is set at a level that would allow someone to make the monthly payments but would be very difficult for them to pay off in full should they ever max it out. I have not been able to verify this, but it makes complete sense to me.
RDS
http://www.smartfinancialvalues.com
loading....
This goes to show you how companies like Equifax can take YOUR DATA and sell it, not only to other companies but they also make you personally pay for it if you want your credit score, then if there “data” is wrong it takes an act of congress to get it cleaned up. These companies are in business to make money but I believe my data is my business and I should have complete access to it.
Personal accountability is a must in finances. I think a lot of people think as long as they can make there payments they are just fine or there debt is manageable. What they don’t consider is if there is a job loss or income loss there would be no way to make the payments on all of the commitments that they made.
http://goingfrugal.blogspot.com/
loading....
The difference between your example of the beer given to the alcoholic and the credit card companies is that you’re GIVING him the beer. If you wanted to make just a bit more like the credit card companies here, you’d offer to SELL him the beer, but don’t worry, he can pay you back later. Some friend you are!
loading....
Stop junk mail and also try to get on NO CALL lists as well, I have added myself to the no call list and my dinner hours are much quieter and unfortunately I no longer win free trips to Orlando, but I can live without that too.
C8j
loading....
Just imagine what Quicken can do when you sign up for their free online service and give them access to the finer details of your spending.
loading....
I think personal responsibility has been thrown out the window. The way I see it, if you offer a man some beer, and he takes it, it’s his fault, not yours. If you sign up for a credit card, it’s no one’s fault but yours. If you max out a credit card, it’s no one’s fault but yours. If you buy things you can’t afford, it’s no one’s fault but yours.
I’ve said before on this blog, I personally like getting credit card offers. A credit card is just a tool, and I use the tool wisely in order to make additional money for myself. If other people don’t know how to take advantage of the tools offered them, then once again, that’s no one’s fault but theirs, but I certainly shouldn’t be held responsible or otherwise be affected.
I do agree, however, that we as consumers should have 100% free access to our own information in our own credit files. I think a law should be allowed to give consumers unlimited free access to their own personal information.
loading....
I thought of an interesting way to look at this last night. It’s like a continuum.
Some people — like Rick — believe that 100% of the responsibility lies with the borrower. Others (Elizabeth Warren? The producers of Maxed Out?) believe that 100% of the responsibility lies with the lender. I come down somewhere in between, and believe that in each case it’s different.
There’s a great example in Maxed Out where Citibank coerces a mentally retarted guy to sign up for a new mortgage by claiming it will be better than his government-subsidized cheap mortgage. It’s not, and they guy gets into serious trouble. In that case? I’d say 100% the fault of Citibank.
On the other hand, even though I love him, I look at my brother’s current situation, and I have to say it’s 95% his fault (though that’s not the way *he* sees it).
Most cases lie somewhere in the middle. I’d guess that most of the time, it’s 80% the fault of the consumer, but there’s usually some component of blame that can be ascribed to the lender.
In my opinion.
loading....
Whenever I hear the words “I was lured”, I think back to the scene in Bull Durham (Annie is the character played by Susan Sarandon):
Millie: I got lured.
Annie: You didn’t get “lured”. Women never get lured. They’re too strong and powerful for that. Now say it — “I didn’t get lured and I will take responsibility for my actions”.
Millie: I didn’t get lured and I will take responsibility for my actions.
Annie: That’s better.
I have similar thoughts about most adult consumers.
loading....
EXCELLENT analogy with the beer, JD.
loading....
Sorry to double-post, JD. I just reread your beer analogy:
“The companies that collect and market the data defend the practice, of course — they believe they’re offering consumers a service. I’m not convinced. If I hand a cold beer to a thirsty alcoholic on a hot day, does that make me a Samaritan? If he drinks it, do I bear any responsibility for what might happen?”
You say “they believe they’re offering consumers a service”. Who’s this “they”? I’ve worked in Corporate America a long time, and “they” believe in making money. “They” want us to believe that they’re offering us a valuable service out of the goodness of their hearts, but most of the players above a certain level are paid based on performance, usually financial performance.
If we’re being trusting, “they” are acting ethically and legally. However, noone should ever assume that someone who is convincing us of something is ever doing it purely out of concern for our well being. Even when someone truly cares about us, that person is still arguing for what he or she believes is right, which might not be right for us. Why should any thinking adult assume that a profit-driven corporation would truly care about what is best for us?
So, back to the analogy — if you know the person is an alcoholic and you have the choice between water and beer, and you hand him a beer, you’re not behaving in his best interest, nor is he, if he takes it. If you don’t know he’s an alcoholic, then you’re innocent due to your ignorance — you can’t assume that everyone’s an alcoholic. If he’s literally dying of dehydration and there is only beer, well, then that’s a different question altogether. You are doing the best you can, and so is he.
So, for your analogy to work, I agree with the previous poster who said that you need to be getting some kind of advantage by having him drink your beer. You have to have a motive of your own that gives you incentive to have as many people drink beer as possible, without saddling you with the responsibility of making sure they can handle any beer you give them.
loading....
My only question is this:
If we apply this thinking to loans, do we not have to apply it to all areas where a company provides a service or product?
Is McDonald’s responsible if I become fat?
Is a cigarette company responsible if I smoke and later have cancer?
My point is, if a company provides all the needed information, ie. interest rate on a loan, the amount of calories in a hamburger, the possibility of smoking causing cancer, then we as consumers still make the choice to move forward….how is the company responsible?
Sure, there will always be cases of fraud, etc, but this is not the case in the vast majority of instances.
I just cannot stomach the idea of people not taking responsibility for their own actions when supplied with sufficient data to make an educated decision.
loading....
I think for most people this isn’t really too much of an issue. It’s those that really NEED the financial help that get suckered in. It just sounds so good, and they don’t really know any better.
loading....
Sometimes I feel that corporations are not asked to shoulder their full responsibility in the PF world. If we are asking individuals to “take responsibility” for accepting loans that they were not reasonably able to repay, we should also ask corporations to “take responsibility” for acting *in their own interests* and making sure that they lend appropriate amounts of money to people who are likely to repay it. I am not against personal responsibility — rather, I am for shared responsibility.
I think the “just say no” approach to personal finance is ultimately too Puritan and punitive. Companies have become incredibly sophisticated marketers of their products, while people have remained people. Who do you think has the most information, statistical models, and dispassionate analysis on their side, card companies like Capital One or the average American? The consumer comes into relationships with financial behemoths armed with relatively little. Yet the big bully financial services companies only bear 15% of the responsibility when its sophisticated marketing techniques backfire? Did they not enter this situation armed with much more information than the consumer they profited on?
loading....
Maxed Out is available on Netflix’s Watch Instantly for those of you who subscribe to Netflix. That way you don’t need to buy it to watch it.
No dear; I’m *frugal*, not cheap.
loading....
I’m sorry but I can’t help but disagree with you. My credit is decent and the decision I have made in life should be rewarded when I borrow money. The ancillary information credit reporting agencies collect on people help lenders make decisions and in the end encourage borrowers to make better decisions in their life’s so credit can be cheaper.
I do however agree that the direct marketing crap you receive is annoying beyond belief. I’m glad you had a reader who posted an opt out number.
loading....
@brarian Just wanted to point out that a big chunk of the mess we’re in was because financial institutions were forced to provide loans to persons of high risk to whom they normally would have rejected for inability to repay. Once forced to provide these loans is it any wonder the financial industry turned around and tried to create a way to make a profit out of the crock of crap they had by calling it powerful fertilizer and marketing it?
While I agree that credit card and other consumer marketing is getting way to sophisticated for the average guy, I find lots of folks just don’t want to hear the warnings or shut off the offers. I swear they like having their buttons stroked, they feel important or validated that someone would offer them another credit card or loan. It’s like they’ve tied it to their self worth in some cases. Someone mentioned junk mail, I know a few older folk who love to get junk mail because they’ve apparently got little else to do with their day and they like reading it all. Sad, and these aren’t just lonely shut ins who never see anyone. They’ll complain about how much they get, but when I offer to take care of it, I get shut down fast.
loading....
Actually, we don’t mind credit card and mortgage solicitations. We shred them and use them for cat litter. Seems appropriate somehow.
loading....
@Martin
How were banks forced to offer loans to those who could not repay?
loading....
@brarian:
Have you heard of something called the Community Reinvestment Act? This basically forced banks to lend to minorities who would otherwise be considered “subprime”. This was done in the name of achieving the “American Dream” of homeownership. The act was originally passed by President Carter in the 70′s, but it was strengthened by Clinton. Many people consider this act to be the source for all the subprime lending we’ve seen this decade.
loading....
@Rick — I’ve read that most lenders providing subprime mortgages were not subject to the CRA. So, what do you attribute the non-CRA subprime mortgage lending to?
loading....
I believe at the time of its publishing this piece may already be out of date. Lenders have been curtailing their credit card offers in response to rising mortgage and credit card defaults. See the article in today’s New York Times:
Consumers Feel the Next Crisis: It’s Credit Cards
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/29credit.html?em
For better or worse, it appears that lender sentiment is swinging away from greed and back to fear.
loading....
“Subprime” minorities? I guess that makes me a prime minority.
It’s my understanding that CRA applies to depository banks, which were not the biggest players in the subprime industry. And it doesn’t seem to me that it forced anyone to make loans to people who weren’t creditworthy.
loading....