Why I'll never use Affirm again(gist.github.com)
gist.github.com
Why I'll never use Affirm again
https://gist.github.com/mabunday/a9d8effcd1054fed30da172f97926c6a
297 comments
Planet Money is looking for people who have had questionable experiences with BNPL providers, I'd take a look if you haven't already: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079837232/have-you-used-buy-...
So basically reporting, with an agenda and selection bias?
Seems like a perfectly good way to go about it as long as the stories are validated and the companies in question are given a chance to rebut.
[deleted]
This is kind of OP's fault, right? I don't think it was appropriate to initiate a charge back on a payment to affirm since they provided their service to OP, that is they already paid for whatever OP was buying. I have a feeling that timing between OP opening the chargeback and the shipping of the item was actually coincidental.
I'd think if you paid affirm and the merchant hadn't shipped the item, then your recourse would be to go to Affirm, not your credit card you used to pay affirm.
I'd think if you paid affirm and the merchant hadn't shipped the item, then your recourse would be to go to Affirm, not your credit card you used to pay affirm.
What? How are you going to charge back against someone you didn't actually deal with financially?
Your arguement is that Affirm should be able to clip the ticket and hold no responsibility for their client fufilling their duties?
The charge back goes to who you paid for a service, if they need to pass it on, it's for them to do.
Your arguement is that Affirm should be able to clip the ticket and hold no responsibility for their client fufilling their duties?
The charge back goes to who you paid for a service, if they need to pass it on, it's for them to do.
I cannot say anything wrt this specific case but it definitely depends. Where I'm from you'd basically make 2 contracts: one purchase agreement and then another one for the money, which is basically just a credit you've gotta pay back.
So here you'd have to contact the seller, as the other party merely gave you a credit with hopefully good terms
So here you'd have to contact the seller, as the other party merely gave you a credit with hopefully good terms
Author never disputed the transaction with Affirm, he just went straight to chargeback after getting nowhere with the merchant.
> and they were unresponsive to my requests for a shipping date
There wasn’t an issue with Affirm not paying the money onward, why go to them.
Once again, Affirm have agreed to give credit to this company, that relationship is theirs. If their client isn’t fulfilling their duties it’s Affirms problem too.
Credit cards work like this, you pay your 2-4% fee and you’re guaranteed what you expected to receive.
Hence why airlines changing peoples tickets out for credit during the pandemic was easily routed around via a cc charge back.
I literally had the Turkish government change the law on my ticket to say the airline didn’t have to fly me but could swap my ticket for credit and I still made it away with my money in the end.
There wasn’t an issue with Affirm not paying the money onward, why go to them.
Once again, Affirm have agreed to give credit to this company, that relationship is theirs. If their client isn’t fulfilling their duties it’s Affirms problem too.
Credit cards work like this, you pay your 2-4% fee and you’re guaranteed what you expected to receive.
Hence why airlines changing peoples tickets out for credit during the pandemic was easily routed around via a cc charge back.
I literally had the Turkish government change the law on my ticket to say the airline didn’t have to fly me but could swap my ticket for credit and I still made it away with my money in the end.
> If their client isn’t fulfilling their duties it’s Affirms problem too.
Again, they didn't even know there was a problem because the author never brought it to their attention before the chargeback.
The author borrowed money from Affirm and agreed to pay it back. He's in breach of his contract with Affirm, over a dispute with the merchant (a different party).
Again, they didn't even know there was a problem because the author never brought it to their attention before the chargeback.
The author borrowed money from Affirm and agreed to pay it back. He's in breach of his contract with Affirm, over a dispute with the merchant (a different party).
They make their money by acting as an integrated intermediary. They didn't borrow money separately and then use that money to buy an item. They borrowed as an integrated step in the purchase interface.
By acting as the intermediary they are the only party that received the posters money and ergo the only and appropriate party to claw the money back from. This is no different from buying a widget on amazon. Failing to receive the widget. Initiating a chargeback for the money.
Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.
Indeed its not really any different from a direct retail purchase where you buy a box and if you open the box and instead of nice new widget you find one that looks like it was mauled by a bear. Can you imagine going to the returns counter and being told despite paying us your money at our point of sale you need to fly to china and sue them if you want your money back. It's just not how the universe works.
They most likely actually CAN'T take money and deliver nothing and make it someone else's problem if they both want to do business in the US and keep doing business with credit card issuers here.
By acting as the intermediary they are the only party that received the posters money and ergo the only and appropriate party to claw the money back from. This is no different from buying a widget on amazon. Failing to receive the widget. Initiating a chargeback for the money.
Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.
Indeed its not really any different from a direct retail purchase where you buy a box and if you open the box and instead of nice new widget you find one that looks like it was mauled by a bear. Can you imagine going to the returns counter and being told despite paying us your money at our point of sale you need to fly to china and sue them if you want your money back. It's just not how the universe works.
They most likely actually CAN'T take money and deliver nothing and make it someone else's problem if they both want to do business in the US and keep doing business with credit card issuers here.
This isn't a good analogy. A retailer is responsible for giving you what you ordered (a nice new widget) because you are literally buying it from them. In this case, Affirm isn't fulfilling the purchase at all.
I think a better analogy would be you bought a house, but you find out later the seller lied about something (maybe they didn't install a new roof like they claimed), so you think the best course of action is to stop making mortgage payments to your bank.
> Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.
Yeah, after you request a refund from them. Try issuing a chargeback to Amazon next time you buy something from a 3rd party seller, I think you will have a bad time.
I think a better analogy would be you bought a house, but you find out later the seller lied about something (maybe they didn't install a new roof like they claimed), so you think the best course of action is to stop making mortgage payments to your bank.
> Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.
Yeah, after you request a refund from them. Try issuing a chargeback to Amazon next time you buy something from a 3rd party seller, I think you will have a bad time.
> airlines changing peoples tickets out for credit during the pandemic was easily routed around via a cc charge back
You still owe them the money. The airline can stop you from boarding a future flight. Chargebacks are not magic debt elimination tools.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/12/ryanair-ban...
You still owe them the money. The airline can stop you from boarding a future flight. Chargebacks are not magic debt elimination tools.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/12/ryanair-ban...
If that was the case, Turkish airlines had 4 more days to wait until we went to mediation with MasterCard. They could’ve proved their point and taken the money.
They didn’t, they backed out and handed the money back. 1600usd.
The concept that I still owe them money after they were unable to fulfill their duties is laughable, so much so, they wouldn’t even back themselves.
Edit, just to make it clear cc chargebacks aren’t some hit and run scheme
To get to the point I did. I had to
1 convince my bank I was right before they opened any dispute
2 defend myself against evidence the airline put forward saying they were right
3 wait 164 days for my money
And 1600usd vs never using Turkish airlines again… I’ll take the money.
They didn’t, they backed out and handed the money back. 1600usd.
The concept that I still owe them money after they were unable to fulfill their duties is laughable, so much so, they wouldn’t even back themselves.
Edit, just to make it clear cc chargebacks aren’t some hit and run scheme
To get to the point I did. I had to
1 convince my bank I was right before they opened any dispute
2 defend myself against evidence the airline put forward saying they were right
3 wait 164 days for my money
And 1600usd vs never using Turkish airlines again… I’ll take the money.
Sounds to me like Ryanair is on rocky footing with the law here. They refuse service, they issue a refund. Simple as that. They owe those people money. Unfortunate the courts didn't resolve it.
OP used a card to pay a loan and the amount was correctly credited to their account. They're getting what they used the credit card to pay for.
I think the loophole here is Affirm not being regulated like a CC. Then they'd be required to arbitrate the dispute between OP and the merchant.
I think the loophole here is Affirm not being regulated like a CC. Then they'd be required to arbitrate the dispute between OP and the merchant.
Just to add to this, it sounds like OP didn't contact Affirm until after they already started the charge back. I definitely don't think it is appropriate to do a charge back before contacting the vendor that got the payment, which is Affirm.
My credit card won't even let me initiate a chargeback until I've contacted the retailer.
Cards that are higher up in benefits and fees in the US will.
Yikes, I can’t believe all the comments blaming OP. It was clearly the retailer in breach of Affirm’s terms, not OP. Charge backs also have a limited window to claim - I can’t see anything that was done wrong here by OP. Yes, OP could’ve attempted to resolve with affirm up front, but why should that be necessary?
> It was clearly the retailer in breach of Affirm’s terms
Yes, and that's why the payment to the retailer should have been the one in dispute, not the loan payment to Affirm. This is how it always works when you finance through a third party... it works the same way for a car loan, a mortgage, a credit card, etc.
Yes, and that's why the payment to the retailer should have been the one in dispute, not the loan payment to Affirm. This is how it always works when you finance through a third party... it works the same way for a car loan, a mortgage, a credit card, etc.
How do you dispute a charge that took place between Affirm and the delinquent merchant? Affirm has your money. Affirms partner hasn't delivered on your merchandise. Affirm by being the one in possession of your money for which you have received nothing is the one in breach of your agreement and has no power to enforce terms for an agreement it has violated.
How do you charge back usually? You contact your credit card provider right? You don't just avoid paying your credit card... you contact the ones that credited you the money. In this case this is Affirm the creditor (I know you got 2 credits here, but that's a choice).
You got 2 contracts here, one to pay back a loan, an another with the merchant, and sadly, when you don't pay back a credit, it get on your credit report...
So the one to contact, is Affirm, just like the one to contact in case of issue with a payment you made, is your credit card provider, and not your bank.
You got 2 contracts here, one to pay back a loan, an another with the merchant, and sadly, when you don't pay back a credit, it get on your credit report...
So the one to contact, is Affirm, just like the one to contact in case of issue with a payment you made, is your credit card provider, and not your bank.
Ok so this is what an affirm transaction looks like. You go to bobsite it says you can have a widget by paying now or if you click this radio button and select affirm there will be a only slightly different flow where you without leaving bobs site you agree to pay for it over time with the same payment card you have on file with bobsite for regular purchases. Click Complete purchase done.
Your money flows from you -> affirm -> merchant in a singular transaction that is actuated by several automatically scheduled payments at the appointed dates.
No transaction flowed between you -> merchant to charge back. Given that actually litigating a dispute in multiple states would be thousands of dollars your only actual options are let them keep all your money even if they are in effect defrauding you OR issue a chargeback to the party that collected your money and let THEM handle retrieving any money transferred from them to the merchant who ultimately didn't fulfill their duty.
You will note that due to the high cost of retrieving your money the merchant has absolutely no reason not to just keep your money and ignore your phone calls. They after all already have the money they were going to make off you. It cannot afford to not pick up the phone for Affirm because it intends to via its continuing relationship to continue making money.
Fundamentally every transaction you undertake is intermediated usually through a multitude of levels whoever actually takes your money be it affirm or walmart has no right to be paid if the goods aren't delivered and acquires in addition to your money the obligation of making the customer whole first and then seeking redress up the food chain.
This is only untrue when there are two distinct different not directly related transactions. Get a generic credit card and use it to buy a TV for example. It would make little sense for chase to expect to be paid $500,000 for a house it turned out the seller had no right to sell or $50,000 for a car that was never delivered due to mischance. In both cases even though you had agreed to borrow that money the transaction would be unwound and not merely by you. This unwinding in case of a failure by merchant to deliver product financed is an expected part of such an interaction in part because such transactions almost always concern a great deal of money.
A situation whereby a singular purchase actuated by a button click is treated as 2 distinct transactions with virtually no recourse for any sort of misbehavior violates decades of consumer expectations and the ground rules under which we all presently do business. It is surprising and harmful.
Your money flows from you -> affirm -> merchant in a singular transaction that is actuated by several automatically scheduled payments at the appointed dates.
No transaction flowed between you -> merchant to charge back. Given that actually litigating a dispute in multiple states would be thousands of dollars your only actual options are let them keep all your money even if they are in effect defrauding you OR issue a chargeback to the party that collected your money and let THEM handle retrieving any money transferred from them to the merchant who ultimately didn't fulfill their duty.
You will note that due to the high cost of retrieving your money the merchant has absolutely no reason not to just keep your money and ignore your phone calls. They after all already have the money they were going to make off you. It cannot afford to not pick up the phone for Affirm because it intends to via its continuing relationship to continue making money.
Fundamentally every transaction you undertake is intermediated usually through a multitude of levels whoever actually takes your money be it affirm or walmart has no right to be paid if the goods aren't delivered and acquires in addition to your money the obligation of making the customer whole first and then seeking redress up the food chain.
This is only untrue when there are two distinct different not directly related transactions. Get a generic credit card and use it to buy a TV for example. It would make little sense for chase to expect to be paid $500,000 for a house it turned out the seller had no right to sell or $50,000 for a car that was never delivered due to mischance. In both cases even though you had agreed to borrow that money the transaction would be unwound and not merely by you. This unwinding in case of a failure by merchant to deliver product financed is an expected part of such an interaction in part because such transactions almost always concern a great deal of money.
A situation whereby a singular purchase actuated by a button click is treated as 2 distinct transactions with virtually no recourse for any sort of misbehavior violates decades of consumer expectations and the ground rules under which we all presently do business. It is surprising and harmful.
> whoever actually takes your money be it affirm or walmart has no right to be paid if the goods aren't delivered
This is 100% not true for third party creditors, at least in the US. They do have a right to be paid, regardless of the services you purchased with that credit.
The only reason that you can dispute your credit card transactions is because congress passed a law specifically requiring this process: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/fair-credi...
This and similar carveouts notwithstanding, any loan you take out, you are required repay, regardless of the experience with the seller.
You are correct that it is inconvenient when you obtain loans with poor conflict resolution processes. However, this does not negate your legal responsibility to pay those creditors. This is why laws like the FCBA were passed.
> It would make little sense for chase to expect to be paid $500,000 for a house it turned out the seller had no right to sell or $50,000 for a car that was never delivered due to mischance. In both cases even though you had agreed to borrow that money the transaction would be unwound and not merely by you. This unwinding in case of a failure by merchant to deliver product financed is an expected part of such an interaction in part because such transactions almost always concern a great deal of money.
This might surprise you, but in the US, you are still legally required to pay your loans in both of those circumstances. This is the entire purpose of products like title insurance. The bottom line is that the bank is not culpable for other people's misdeeds.
In a circumstance where you spend $500,000 on a house that could not legally be sold to you, you would have to take the seller to court to recover that money so that you could pay back the loan. Or, more commonly, you'd contact your title insurance company for recovery, because your bank likely required that you bought title insurance for this exact reason.
There is no level of inconvenience that makes a bank legally liable for something that someone else did wrong.
This is 100% not true for third party creditors, at least in the US. They do have a right to be paid, regardless of the services you purchased with that credit.
The only reason that you can dispute your credit card transactions is because congress passed a law specifically requiring this process: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/fair-credi...
This and similar carveouts notwithstanding, any loan you take out, you are required repay, regardless of the experience with the seller.
You are correct that it is inconvenient when you obtain loans with poor conflict resolution processes. However, this does not negate your legal responsibility to pay those creditors. This is why laws like the FCBA were passed.
> It would make little sense for chase to expect to be paid $500,000 for a house it turned out the seller had no right to sell or $50,000 for a car that was never delivered due to mischance. In both cases even though you had agreed to borrow that money the transaction would be unwound and not merely by you. This unwinding in case of a failure by merchant to deliver product financed is an expected part of such an interaction in part because such transactions almost always concern a great deal of money.
This might surprise you, but in the US, you are still legally required to pay your loans in both of those circumstances. This is the entire purpose of products like title insurance. The bottom line is that the bank is not culpable for other people's misdeeds.
In a circumstance where you spend $500,000 on a house that could not legally be sold to you, you would have to take the seller to court to recover that money so that you could pay back the loan. Or, more commonly, you'd contact your title insurance company for recovery, because your bank likely required that you bought title insurance for this exact reason.
There is no level of inconvenience that makes a bank legally liable for something that someone else did wrong.
> Charge backs also have a limited window to claim
That window generally starts counting down once the original transaction has completed in it’s entirety, which means you’ve received the goods (until you get the goods or services only one half of the transaction has completed).
If the merchant doesn’t deliver, then there is no limit on the chargeback period, assuming you’ve made a reasonable attempt to chase the merchant and got nowhere.
That window generally starts counting down once the original transaction has completed in it’s entirety, which means you’ve received the goods (until you get the goods or services only one half of the transaction has completed).
If the merchant doesn’t deliver, then there is no limit on the chargeback period, assuming you’ve made a reasonable attempt to chase the merchant and got nowhere.
Respectively disagree, but regardless the customer service flow is unacceptable and most of the point of the post IMO.
I used Affirm for a Casper mattress back in the day. Much the same scenario, it said "make X payments in Y months" and I was like "Ok".
I think that's Affirm's wheelhouse, providing smaller merchants of largish ticket items an easy way to do financing. So OP may not have had an option outside of Affirm to do the financing.
I'm not sure how much Affirm would care about the issue as they're pretty much a 3rd party to the entire situation. But, yeah, I think the order of operations here would be: call merchant, call Affirm, then call credit card.
I think that's Affirm's wheelhouse, providing smaller merchants of largish ticket items an easy way to do financing. So OP may not have had an option outside of Affirm to do the financing.
I'm not sure how much Affirm would care about the issue as they're pretty much a 3rd party to the entire situation. But, yeah, I think the order of operations here would be: call merchant, call Affirm, then call credit card.
Plenty of people think Casper is pure junk. I understand taking a gamble, though...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mattress/comments/ejx6za/my_casper_...
I guess it would have been smart for OP to think of that purchase as an attempt to get that item from that merchant, and just to eat the $ rather than spend a lot of time and get their credit dinged. It isn't totally different from getting a physical mattress that may or may not work, especially since they eventually did ship the item. Actually, if the mattress caused back pain and I had to go through the trouble of disposing it, that would be worse than getting nothing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mattress/comments/ejx6za/my_casper_...
I guess it would have been smart for OP to think of that purchase as an attempt to get that item from that merchant, and just to eat the $ rather than spend a lot of time and get their credit dinged. It isn't totally different from getting a physical mattress that may or may not work, especially since they eventually did ship the item. Actually, if the mattress caused back pain and I had to go through the trouble of disposing it, that would be worse than getting nothing.
What?
We don't know if he bought a mattress or not. I did. Years ago. And the fact that people online don't like Casper is neither here nor there. It's fine. It's a mattress. It's better than a spring mattress.
I merely brought it up because I used Affirm to purchase it because that was the option given to me by Casper for their "pay in X in Y months" option.
We don't know if he bought a mattress or not. I did. Years ago. And the fact that people online don't like Casper is neither here nor there. It's fine. It's a mattress. It's better than a spring mattress.
I merely brought it up because I used Affirm to purchase it because that was the option given to me by Casper for their "pay in X in Y months" option.
I agree it does read like the OP triggered the entire issue with payments using a chargeback originating from Chase, regardless of the support/platform issues with Affirm.
I don't believe charging back the loan provider had any outcome to getting their product/service.
Affirm was the wrong target.
I don't believe charging back the loan provider had any outcome to getting their product/service.
Affirm was the wrong target.
I have done a charge back against PayPal and I stand by it.
Basically, the vendor said it shipped me the product but never did. However, it gave PayPal a tracking number which was for something delivered to my town. I waited several months for the vendor to make things right.
I asked PayPal and the person said there is nothing it can do. I did a charge back and the bank gave me my money back.
So no, screw the vendors and screw the payment processors. I don't owe them anything. It is their responsibility to do things right or get a charge back.
Basically, the vendor said it shipped me the product but never did. However, it gave PayPal a tracking number which was for something delivered to my town. I waited several months for the vendor to make things right.
I asked PayPal and the person said there is nothing it can do. I did a charge back and the bank gave me my money back.
So no, screw the vendors and screw the payment processors. I don't owe them anything. It is their responsibility to do things right or get a charge back.
> I asked PayPal and the person said there is nothing it can do
That's PayPal's fault then. If they don't make things right, you're justified to hold them to account.
That's PayPal's fault then. If they don't make things right, you're justified to hold them to account.
Who should OP have targeted? The seller wasn't responding and OP had no way to force them to other than charging back against affirm.
OP could have initiated the chargeback through Affirm. I have used this process with Affirm before with much better luck. That being said, this does not excuse Affirms alleged poor customer service in this situation.
Affirm doesn't respond to emails and it's incredibly difficult to get anyone on the phone. So no, I don't think he could've charged back through affirm.
As I said, I have been through this exact situation with Affirm, and I did get my money back, so I know it is possible. I know others (the merchant I bought from went bankrupt) who did not get their money back- both who used Affirm and who used other mechanisms.
So I'm not saying whether or not OP would have gotten their money back had they went directly to Affirm- just that they should have given Affirm the chance. And none of this excuses Affirms allegedly bad customer service in this situation.
So I'm not saying whether or not OP would have gotten their money back had they went directly to Affirm- just that they should have given Affirm the chance. And none of this excuses Affirms allegedly bad customer service in this situation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hi, I am the CEO at Affirm. I am sorry for the bad experience you appear to have had with our customer support — it is certainly not what we strive for.
Please email me at max.levchin @ affirm.com with either the transaction ID or the email address you used to register, and I will track down exactly what happened here. I realize you may not care at this point, but I’d greatly appreciate it, as it will help us prevent poor customer experiences.
Thank you. —Max
Please email me at max.levchin @ affirm.com with either the transaction ID or the email address you used to register, and I will track down exactly what happened here. I realize you may not care at this point, but I’d greatly appreciate it, as it will help us prevent poor customer experiences.
Thank you. —Max
I hope he doesn't. It sounds like your customer service is the usual cost-minimization nightmare, and I don't see how fixing this one case will make it any better.
Companies like yours make it hard for customers to reach capable representatives and routinely break service promises. Because hey! who cares if we have treated people decently? it has nothing to do with the business model.
There must be dozens of ways to ensure your customer service systems treat people properly, and you're clearly doing none of them.
Don't fix this case, fix your systems.
Companies like yours make it hard for customers to reach capable representatives and routinely break service promises. Because hey! who cares if we have treated people decently? it has nothing to do with the business model.
There must be dozens of ways to ensure your customer service systems treat people properly, and you're clearly doing none of them.
Don't fix this case, fix your systems.
You should notice that a CEO may not necessarily be aware of everything going on, and cases like this might trigger a deeper look on his side.
Whether affirm has this kind of issues as a pattern or not, i don't know. But assuming malintent is not a great pov imho.
Whether affirm has this kind of issues as a pattern or not, i don't know. But assuming malintent is not a great pov imho.
> a CEO may not necessarily be aware of everything going on
"Everything" in the micro sense, sure. "Everything" in the macro sense, well, that's literally the job description of CEO, so it sounds like you think the CEO does not deserve criticism. If customer service is not working to the benefit of customers, I'd say that's something a CEO should already be aware of and represents a lack in organizational awareness, which compromises executive duties.
Just because the job is hard doesn't mean we should give anyone a break. Assuming the role and responsibilities of CEO is completely voluntary.
I don't think anyone is assuming malice; intent has nothing to do with this. The outcome of each interaction is only what matters here.
"Everything" in the micro sense, sure. "Everything" in the macro sense, well, that's literally the job description of CEO, so it sounds like you think the CEO does not deserve criticism. If customer service is not working to the benefit of customers, I'd say that's something a CEO should already be aware of and represents a lack in organizational awareness, which compromises executive duties.
Just because the job is hard doesn't mean we should give anyone a break. Assuming the role and responsibilities of CEO is completely voluntary.
I don't think anyone is assuming malice; intent has nothing to do with this. The outcome of each interaction is only what matters here.
You are making plenty of assumptions.
But let's entertain what you said is true.
What if this is a recent regression that even his people (c-level, vp level etc) is trying to solve recently?
Assuming CEO has visibility into every macro thing(who decides what is macro?) at any given point in time is not fair, especially these days when there is so much economic volatility to be honest, which impacts his company more than many others.
He doesn't get a pass because he is the CEO. I believe him to be a decent humble person, that will make a honest attempt to address this specific problem and at large.
That's all.
But let's entertain what you said is true.
What if this is a recent regression that even his people (c-level, vp level etc) is trying to solve recently?
Assuming CEO has visibility into every macro thing(who decides what is macro?) at any given point in time is not fair, especially these days when there is so much economic volatility to be honest, which impacts his company more than many others.
He doesn't get a pass because he is the CEO. I believe him to be a decent humble person, that will make a honest attempt to address this specific problem and at large.
That's all.
>> Please email me [...] it will help us prevent poor customer experiences.
> I hope he doesn't. [...] Don't fix this case, fix your systems.
He's literally trying to do exactly that (and acknowledged the customer is pissed and likely can't be bothered to).
How would you hande this situation?
Not the hypothetical "I'd never let this happen", because if you haven't given at least someone a bad customer experience, you didn't have customers.
> I hope he doesn't. [...] Don't fix this case, fix your systems.
He's literally trying to do exactly that (and acknowledged the customer is pissed and likely can't be bothered to).
How would you hande this situation?
Not the hypothetical "I'd never let this happen", because if you haven't given at least someone a bad customer experience, you didn't have customers.
I would send them an email at the address listed in their HN profile (it's there, I checked). I would NOT respond to a complaint like this on Hacker News with some performative demonstration of concern.
I would ask my VP for customer service to explain the state of the operation and why this case is such a mess. Who knows, maybe they aren't getting adequate resources or support. I'd do a deep dive: - What are our average call hold times? standard deviations? what is our response to outliers? - How do we QC these calls? - When we promise to contact a customer, what is our average response time? standard deviations? what is our response to outliers? - How do we QC the quality of those responses? - What are our escalation procedures? How often / effectively are they invoked? - What is our track record with credit bureau reports -- how often are they challenged? what is the outcome of those challenges? - What is our plan for customer service? How do we know it is properly resourced?
I'd expect answers to these questions in a day or so, if they can't answer these quickly they aren't the right person.
I would be preparing to tell my board, subject to the answers received above, that we have serious problems in customer support, we need new leadership/strategy there, and this might be expensive.
These are the guesses of a zero-management experience dude. I'm sure a real CEO would have a better list -- but they should be doing something serious about problems that are clearly systematic.
I would ask my VP for customer service to explain the state of the operation and why this case is such a mess. Who knows, maybe they aren't getting adequate resources or support. I'd do a deep dive: - What are our average call hold times? standard deviations? what is our response to outliers? - How do we QC these calls? - When we promise to contact a customer, what is our average response time? standard deviations? what is our response to outliers? - How do we QC the quality of those responses? - What are our escalation procedures? How often / effectively are they invoked? - What is our track record with credit bureau reports -- how often are they challenged? what is the outcome of those challenges? - What is our plan for customer service? How do we know it is properly resourced?
I'd expect answers to these questions in a day or so, if they can't answer these quickly they aren't the right person.
I would be preparing to tell my board, subject to the answers received above, that we have serious problems in customer support, we need new leadership/strategy there, and this might be expensive.
These are the guesses of a zero-management experience dude. I'm sure a real CEO would have a better list -- but they should be doing something serious about problems that are clearly systematic.
Something can be both performative, and honest at the same time.
He probably got notified by someone in the company that this is getting attention, he felt responsible so he responded AND got people to pull numbers for example.
He probably got notified by someone in the company that this is getting attention, he felt responsible so he responded AND got people to pull numbers for example.
> I hope he doesnt.
I personally find Max's (CEO's) response great, and his direct reply and personal note/care is one of the best possible outcomes in this situation. I wouldn't want to discourage this kind of response.
I personally find Max's (CEO's) response great, and his direct reply and personal note/care is one of the best possible outcomes in this situation. I wouldn't want to discourage this kind of response.
The only appropriate response is a public flogging. I also hope he validates my cynicism rather than solve the problem.
It is great that you are trying to help but a customer support situation where there is no actual recourse but complaining on hacker news can't possibly scale and while functional orgs absolutely DO drop the ball sometimes they don't drop the ball repeatedly. From my experience something like this not getting escalated and then escalated again until somebody can handle it is that the system process is broken. In other words there is no sane universe where you learn about this problem on hacker news.
How do you plan to fix THAT.
How do you plan to fix THAT.
Bringing the attention of a systematic failure/issue to a CEO that may be caused by policies that force KPIs internally that lead to frustrating encounters is the best way to resolve these kinds of issues.
I have never seen the CEO of any organization I've ever worked for fix anything of note even company or life threatening situations unless it was actually to the point of threatening the immediate existence of cash flows right away as in this quarter. Honestly anyone who expects Affirm to fix an issue where a fraction of 1% of users are fucked and 99% are OK is dreaming. All it would have to do to negative the benefit of such is for it to increase costs by 1%
The smart folks reading this thread have just learned that its wise not to do business with affirm because its not worth the hassle.
The smart folks reading this thread have just learned that its wise not to do business with affirm because its not worth the hassle.
I was an engineer at Google, in admob specifically.
We would get issues all over the place. 99% was publisher bug, but it would help us detect patterns and potentially improve the API, or onboarding flow etc. On the 1% we would sometimes figure out later because support Frontline didn't realize the issue properly and we had to address it few months later.
All that is is a feedback. I believe we tried to do better by people but our scale probably grew faster than our process could scale.
And i say this as a victim of Google's account support (or lack thereof). It is horrible, but you figure nothing is perfect.
"Smart folks" tend to know how sausage is made and take things into account and not simply abandon. Don't project your own opinion on others.
We would get issues all over the place. 99% was publisher bug, but it would help us detect patterns and potentially improve the API, or onboarding flow etc. On the 1% we would sometimes figure out later because support Frontline didn't realize the issue properly and we had to address it few months later.
All that is is a feedback. I believe we tried to do better by people but our scale probably grew faster than our process could scale.
And i say this as a victim of Google's account support (or lack thereof). It is horrible, but you figure nothing is perfect.
"Smart folks" tend to know how sausage is made and take things into account and not simply abandon. Don't project your own opinion on others.
You‘ve been given enough details to get your shop in order. Your processes are broken by design if support staff is provided neither with the means to escalate nor resolve issues. It’s time to let your actions or lack of there of speak instead of a cheap damage control post on hacker news attempting to redirect communications into private channels.
Max, you should personally read some of your negative NPS feedback after service interactions to get a better understanding of what is going wrong in your business.
If you're not already using NPS surveys after customer interactions and then looking at the detractors on how to improve your service, you should start now. Could be really enlightening.
If you're not already using NPS surveys after customer interactions and then looking at the detractors on how to improve your service, you should start now. Could be really enlightening.
Max, check out “The Effortless Experience” - how Verizon took care of this same challenge.
There’s a way to provide cost optimized customer service that doesn’t put the burden on the customer to drive the process.
There’s a way to provide cost optimized customer service that doesn’t put the burden on the customer to drive the process.
There's a misconception that when you initiate a chargeback through your credit card, then you're good, you have your money and the merchant just has to eat it.
But the chargeback doesn't erase your debt with the merchant, so they are free to collect that debt by other means, including sending it to a debt collector.
Adding a third party like Affirm makes this messier - Affirm (presumably) fulfilled their service, they let you finance the debt and they paid the money to the merchant
But the chargeback doesn't erase your debt with the merchant, so they are free to collect that debt by other means, including sending it to a debt collector.
Adding a third party like Affirm makes this messier - Affirm (presumably) fulfilled their service, they let you finance the debt and they paid the money to the merchant
And not all chargebacks go through. Your bank or credit card company likely gives you a “provisional credit” while they investigate. The funds appear in your account but they can (and occasionally do) get pulled back if the financial institution determines, for whatever reason, the chargeback isn’t valid.
I've had a scungy online only travel agent try to pull this on me before.
Their email to me saying they would be materially disadvantaged and blah blah blah got met with a response telling them to fuck off, stop emailing me and that I was reporting them to my bank for merchant fraud (which I did).
Problem solved. It's all fun and games until they risk losing their ability to process credit cards.
Their email to me saying they would be materially disadvantaged and blah blah blah got met with a response telling them to fuck off, stop emailing me and that I was reporting them to my bank for merchant fraud (which I did).
Problem solved. It's all fun and games until they risk losing their ability to process credit cards.
If you can prove that you don't owe the debt, then you're fine. But you can't just do a chargeback and assume that you no longer have to pay -- just because the credit card company took your side doesn't mean that you don't actually owe the money.
The point still stands. You should not use affirm.
When a problem happens, it is "nobody's" fault. But your credit gets destroyed though.
When a problem happens, it is "nobody's" fault. But your credit gets destroyed though.
Is it normal to do a chargeback against a loan provider? I was under the impression that it’s more for “services rendered” type of situations — which the lender fulfilled by providing the loan. I would expect there to be pure chaos if I did that to any of my lenders. I’ve just never heard of this sort of situation so I’m curious as to what the financial wisdom is.
I would think that the better thing -- in an ideal world -- would be to contact Affirm and tell them to withhold payment from the merchant, since the merchant had not provided the goods. That way you'd still be in Affirm's good graces.
But considering how this particular situation went as-is, I doubt Affirm would handle that request in any useful manner. Then again, I feel like this was a bit of an unusual situation that Affirm's customer service people were not well-equipped to handle (most people probably don't send chargebacks to Affirm), but perhaps Affirm does have a playbook for cases where a customer pays for something that isn't delivered.
So I'd agree that Affirm might not be the most appropriate target for a chargeback in this instance, but there might not be other options to get the merchant to send the goods. OP should have at least contacted Affirm before issuing the chargeback, though, since that's something of a nuclear option.
But considering how this particular situation went as-is, I doubt Affirm would handle that request in any useful manner. Then again, I feel like this was a bit of an unusual situation that Affirm's customer service people were not well-equipped to handle (most people probably don't send chargebacks to Affirm), but perhaps Affirm does have a playbook for cases where a customer pays for something that isn't delivered.
So I'd agree that Affirm might not be the most appropriate target for a chargeback in this instance, but there might not be other options to get the merchant to send the goods. OP should have at least contacted Affirm before issuing the chargeback, though, since that's something of a nuclear option.
Affirm is not like a credit card. They actually put your loan with Cross River Bank and are just the middle-man who collects commissions and collects fees from merchants for advertising on Affirm.com/app. I learned this the hard way... they care not if you get the item, or if it is good, or if it is a scam. Affirm is oblivious to it all. Just collecting fees.
Same with any other loan product the bank doesn't care if it's a scam, only cares about collecting that glorious interest payment or fees associated. Plenty of people buy bad used cars with loans that span over years and that used car may fail months after purchase. Guess who doesn't care... the loan provider/bank.
Still the point is Affirm was the wrong target for their chargeback and the OP should have contacted Affirm to potentially resolve the merchant not delivering the goods or a refund of the loan.
Merchant > Affirm > OP Bank
Still the point is Affirm was the wrong target for their chargeback and the OP should have contacted Affirm to potentially resolve the merchant not delivering the goods or a refund of the loan.
Merchant > Affirm > OP Bank
Dental work is another, there are a lot of shady BNPL dental firms.
Cross River might originate your loan, but AFAIK this is basically just a workaround for regulation on loan origination. Affirm just buys the loans back from Cross River once they have been funded, so they bear the credit risk.
(It sounds like it’s more complex than this, but I doubt Cross River has significant exposure to Affirm loans.)
(It sounds like it’s more complex than this, but I doubt Cross River has significant exposure to Affirm loans.)
Affirm makes money on both sides - interest from the customer, and a percentage of the transaction fee based inversely to the customer interest rate (e.g. you can do 0% interest but the retailer pays more per transaction).
[deleted]
They're often very ill-equipped to deal with it and honestly it can hurt OR help you.
My car loan processor accidentally double charged my $5k loan payoff (and it didn't bounce). Customer support told me the only way to get back my money quickly would be to report fraud through my bank on the 2nd charge, which I did and the 2nd charge was returned within 2 business days. Then several weeks later I get snail-mail confirmation that my loan had been paid off and a certificate indicating this, along with a check for $5k from the lender. I called their customer support but they told me they are sorry but unfortunately since the account was already marked as paid out and those funds disbursed, I would "have" to keep it, so I gladly cashed the $5k check thereby getting my final $5k payoff of my vehicle for free thanks to the lender's mistakes.
My car loan processor accidentally double charged my $5k loan payoff (and it didn't bounce). Customer support told me the only way to get back my money quickly would be to report fraud through my bank on the 2nd charge, which I did and the 2nd charge was returned within 2 business days. Then several weeks later I get snail-mail confirmation that my loan had been paid off and a certificate indicating this, along with a check for $5k from the lender. I called their customer support but they told me they are sorry but unfortunately since the account was already marked as paid out and those funds disbursed, I would "have" to keep it, so I gladly cashed the $5k check thereby getting my final $5k payoff of my vehicle for free thanks to the lender's mistakes.
This is like the mattress startup equivalent where if you try to return a mattress within their very generous trial period, you're often told to "keep it" and your purchase price is refunded.
Yeah, they literally told me if I didn't cash it their system was just going to keep sending checks every 90 days so I might as well cash it now.
Why not wait a year and cash all the checks at once?
Because that is fraud and you will go to prison.
The checks would probably just bounce.
all but the latest would bounce
you can file a chargeback against anyone if you paid them with a credit card, you can file for ACH reject if ACH payments.
One thing I'm curious about is whether Affirm would return the payment to you while they investigate the chargeback - that would be one reason as a consumer I would do a chargeback through my bank instead.
One point not brought up is that Chase may not be an honest broker here. I've seen both sides of a "charge back" that had the bank lying to both parties while soaking up a bunch of fees. Telling the customer that it had been resolved in the company's favor while telling the company that it had been resolved in the customer's favor. Taking both the funds and fees for themselves.
Affirm might well be correct that the bank has not really resolved the chargeback despite what Chase is telling him.
Affirm might well be correct that the bank has not really resolved the chargeback despite what Chase is telling him.
Chargebacks don’t work the way people think they work.
Under the hood raising a chargeback means your bank send the acquiring bank a message (with an exponent and evidence) that immediately reverts the original transaction and transfers money from the acquirer to the customers bank.
The merchant via the acquirer can then issue a message that does the opposite, again with an explanation and evidence. Eventually the card network steps in and makes a final decision, but they charge a significant fee to do this, strongly encouraging the parties to resolve the situation between themselves.
More importantly there is no “win” message or “give up” message. Instead there’s a set period of time each party is allowed to send a reversing message, after that time period the last person to send a message “wins”.
The periods of time involved are significant, ranging from 30 to 90 days depending on where in the process you are. As a result the bank could well say they’ve given up on the chargeback, and allowed the merchant to win. But the merchant can’t be sure of that until the countdown timer on a reversal has expired.
To make things even worse, most bank employees have no idea how payments actually work. They may well be looking at a tool that says they’ve “reversed” the chargeback. But under the hood that could just mean their system won’t send any further messages, allowing the other party to eventually win.
Under the hood raising a chargeback means your bank send the acquiring bank a message (with an exponent and evidence) that immediately reverts the original transaction and transfers money from the acquirer to the customers bank.
The merchant via the acquirer can then issue a message that does the opposite, again with an explanation and evidence. Eventually the card network steps in and makes a final decision, but they charge a significant fee to do this, strongly encouraging the parties to resolve the situation between themselves.
More importantly there is no “win” message or “give up” message. Instead there’s a set period of time each party is allowed to send a reversing message, after that time period the last person to send a message “wins”.
The periods of time involved are significant, ranging from 30 to 90 days depending on where in the process you are. As a result the bank could well say they’ve given up on the chargeback, and allowed the merchant to win. But the merchant can’t be sure of that until the countdown timer on a reversal has expired.
To make things even worse, most bank employees have no idea how payments actually work. They may well be looking at a tool that says they’ve “reversed” the chargeback. But under the hood that could just mean their system won’t send any further messages, allowing the other party to eventually win.
[deleted]
This was very enlightening, thank you. Is there anywhere I can learn more about this horrifying process?
See if someone can sneak you a copy of the MasterCard dispute manual. Beyond that I’m not aware of any public documentation on this process.
The lead is generous. Affirm is charging you for a loan you've already paid and threatening you with late payment. This should be criminal.
Extortion?
Indeed. I would just pay it again. 25% of $271 is cheaper than a credit score hit. You can simultaneously dispute with the Attorney General office.
You should probably read patio11's article on fighting credit agencies instead.
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-r...
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-r...
Not sure why the down votes. You can simultaneously dispute with the Attorney General office while paying Affirm's demands, in the hopes of later getting one of the payments refunded.
The claim in the linked article is that paying the demanded sum will harm the payor's prospects in a subsequent dispute, because the law assumes that any payment of a debt constitutes an admission on the part of the payor that the debt was legitimately owed.
This was a fascinating read.
This isn't the worst advice if he has the money to float it.
I recently had a non-renewal on my homeowner's insurance so I had to get new homeowner's insurance. Through a whole bunch of stuff, I wound up effectively sending three payments to two separate insurance companies. I had to float about $7000 - $8000 for a bit.
The insurance agent I had found seemed to be a bit inept, so I wasn't confident they had everything set up properly. Because when I called my mortgage company, they had no clue I was changing insurance companies. They had already submitted payment to the old insurance. I eventually found out how to pay the insurance on my own and just did that. And how to update my insurance information online. Then my escrow paid the new insurance company. So now I had three payments to two companies. And I had to pay into my escrow to cover the double payment. I was prepared to fight both of these companies to get them to cut checks back to me, but just as I was steeling myself for a day of talking to hapless customer service agents, the refund check from the wrong insurance came in. Then a week later, the refund check from the second payment to the correct insurance came in.
But yeah. I wanted to make sure I didn't have a lapse in coverage and then had to cover my escrow shortage. I technically could have waited for everything to sort out, but I didn't want to find out what would happen if things hadn't landed right.
I recently had a non-renewal on my homeowner's insurance so I had to get new homeowner's insurance. Through a whole bunch of stuff, I wound up effectively sending three payments to two separate insurance companies. I had to float about $7000 - $8000 for a bit.
The insurance agent I had found seemed to be a bit inept, so I wasn't confident they had everything set up properly. Because when I called my mortgage company, they had no clue I was changing insurance companies. They had already submitted payment to the old insurance. I eventually found out how to pay the insurance on my own and just did that. And how to update my insurance information online. Then my escrow paid the new insurance company. So now I had three payments to two companies. And I had to pay into my escrow to cover the double payment. I was prepared to fight both of these companies to get them to cut checks back to me, but just as I was steeling myself for a day of talking to hapless customer service agents, the refund check from the wrong insurance came in. Then a week later, the refund check from the second payment to the correct insurance came in.
But yeah. I wanted to make sure I didn't have a lapse in coverage and then had to cover my escrow shortage. I technically could have waited for everything to sort out, but I didn't want to find out what would happen if things hadn't landed right.
Just FYI, but depending on your situation, you do not need to pay for homeowner's insurance (or real estate taxes) via escrow. You can handle it all yourself so you'll only have yourself to blame if the payments get screwed up.
Eh. I don't mind having it handled through escrow. When it's all set up, it works well enough. It's just getting it to change was a potential issue.
And that's how they make money on 0% interest loans.
No, it really isn't. The seller pays them a ~6% fee that isn't passed on to the consumer; that's how they make money.
A buggy edge case on a tiny borrowed amount does not equate a business model of a multi-million dollar corporation. I've borrowed a total of almost $10,000 thru Affirm over the years and never had problems.
Can I ask why?
I don’t really understand what financially competent person is using affirm. Generally when it comes to buying small nonessentials, if you can’t afford to pay for it now, the prevailing wisdom is don’t find a way to buy it, just do without.
I’m also curious to hear what the experience is like when you need to return something that was bought with affirm? Do they cancel the loan quickly? It appears their cs dept is under trained and doesn’t have the tools necessary to do a good job.
I don’t really understand what financially competent person is using affirm. Generally when it comes to buying small nonessentials, if you can’t afford to pay for it now, the prevailing wisdom is don’t find a way to buy it, just do without.
I’m also curious to hear what the experience is like when you need to return something that was bought with affirm? Do they cancel the loan quickly? It appears their cs dept is under trained and doesn’t have the tools necessary to do a good job.
[deleted]
By a very cursory reading, if Affirm sends a negative report to a credit reporting agency, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, they may be liable for damages and attorney’s fees.
I would suggest writing a letter to Affirm’s legal department describing, very calmly, that Affirm has, apparently knowingly, threatened to send a report to a credit reporting agency despite the fact that Affirm is aware that no actual unpaid debt exists, and that, should this actually occur, you may seek to recover damages under the FCRA.
I would suggest writing a letter to Affirm’s legal department describing, very calmly, that Affirm has, apparently knowingly, threatened to send a report to a credit reporting agency despite the fact that Affirm is aware that no actual unpaid debt exists, and that, should this actually occur, you may seek to recover damages under the FCRA.
When I run into situations like this where escalations aren’t going anywhere I have no trouble emailing specific people in high-level positions and CC’ing legal@, pr@, etc.
I don’t like doing it, but that works pretty well to get things moving.
I don’t like doing it, but that works pretty well to get things moving.
I've never understood the appeal of using a product like Affirm, especially if you already have a credit card.
Credit cards already give you a 30-day grace period before purchases start accruing interest. Using Affirm to extend that to 42 days seems inconsequential.
It seems like their target customer are people bad with credit, which would make them predatory.
Credit cards already give you a 30-day grace period before purchases start accruing interest. Using Affirm to extend that to 42 days seems inconsequential.
It seems like their target customer are people bad with credit, which would make them predatory.
0% APR over 12 months for a big ticket purchase like a mattress in an inflationary environment and a bull market can easily equal an additional 5-7% discount on 2000 dollars.
Admittedly this is not how most people are using Affirm, but it's definitely been useful to me in that way.
Admittedly this is not how most people are using Affirm, but it's definitely been useful to me in that way.
Only if you have a source of post-inflation dollars, such as, your salary having been adjusted for inflation in the meantime, or you've sold inflated commodities recently at a post-inflation price, perhaps a used car that appreciated over the purchase term. If you are stuck with pre-inflation dollars this is no advantage.
You should not simply assume that you have access to more dollars just because inflation is rising. If your prices go up but your income does not, or your income significantly lags (anyone who got a pre-emptive inflation raise let me know, otherwise it always lags), you're paying for today's inflation with dollars from last year.
You should not simply assume that you have access to more dollars just because inflation is rising. If your prices go up but your income does not, or your income significantly lags (anyone who got a pre-emptive inflation raise let me know, otherwise it always lags), you're paying for today's inflation with dollars from last year.
Yeah, the trick on taking out low interest loans is they have to be long term, like a mortgage. Over 30 years, I'm definitely paying it back in post-inflation dollars. In one year? Not really. I'd have to get a raise on, like, the day I took out the loan.
Bingo. That's why I've done payment plans as well. Not because I couldn't just buy the thing, but because spreading the payments out over 12 months means more investment capital.
> because spreading the payments out over 12 months means more investment capital
This is essentially borrowing money to invest. It doesn't matter if the investment makes money or loses money the lender will expect payment. This strategy can make a lot of money, but it's also ruined many people. One key thing to watch while implementing this strategy is your debt to assets ratio. Also understand that during a market crash this ratio might change suddenly and dramatically.
I don't make small (sub $10k) purchases on credit, period. Not only is it somewhat risky but it also encourages overspending because it makes the 'pain' of spending money decrease. As for your $2000 mattress, I saved way more money by buying a $600 mattress instead and I sleep like a rock.
This is essentially borrowing money to invest. It doesn't matter if the investment makes money or loses money the lender will expect payment. This strategy can make a lot of money, but it's also ruined many people. One key thing to watch while implementing this strategy is your debt to assets ratio. Also understand that during a market crash this ratio might change suddenly and dramatically.
I don't make small (sub $10k) purchases on credit, period. Not only is it somewhat risky but it also encourages overspending because it makes the 'pain' of spending money decrease. As for your $2000 mattress, I saved way more money by buying a $600 mattress instead and I sleep like a rock.
> This is essentially borrowing money to invest
Yeah, I don't know why more people don't see it this way.
Everyone seems to agree that you shouldn't eagerly make extra mortgage payments to pay off your home loan ASAP. Because you can pay it off over 30 years and presumably make more $$ investing than whatever paltry interest rate you had on your home loan.
But the same people can't explain why it's a bad idea to take out a 2nd mortgage to invest in the market, or even secure a low-interest loan with your home as collateral. But isn't it exactly the same thing?
Yeah, I don't know why more people don't see it this way.
Everyone seems to agree that you shouldn't eagerly make extra mortgage payments to pay off your home loan ASAP. Because you can pay it off over 30 years and presumably make more $$ investing than whatever paltry interest rate you had on your home loan.
But the same people can't explain why it's a bad idea to take out a 2nd mortgage to invest in the market, or even secure a low-interest loan with your home as collateral. But isn't it exactly the same thing?
> But the same people can't explain why it's a bad idea to take out a 2nd mortgage to invest in the market, or even secure a low-interest loan with your home as collateral. But isn't it exactly the same thing?
So what was their reasoning?
In the end it's all math, where some numbers are random variables with the corresponding variance. So this all depends on what rate you get, what returns you expect from the market, what's your risk tolerance, etc.
So what was their reasoning?
In the end it's all math, where some numbers are random variables with the corresponding variance. So this all depends on what rate you get, what returns you expect from the market, what's your risk tolerance, etc.
A second mortgage is extra risk to a person's most important asset which is typically reserved for funding a major home improvement project or for emergencies.
The "$2000 0% APR mattress loan" is useful because $167/ month is much easier to budget for and doesn't require a huge hit to savings.
One of these is just sane budging, the other is minmax gambling.
The "$2000 0% APR mattress loan" is useful because $167/ month is much easier to budget for and doesn't require a huge hit to savings.
One of these is just sane budging, the other is minmax gambling.
> A second mortgage is extra risk to a person's most important asset
Okay, fine, so that's the reason we don't like borrowing money to invest.
Now explain why it's good to have a mortgage at all? Don't just say "because a couple hundred a month is a small number". That's not a reason, it's just a single, incredibly subjective and situational factoid. Is there a logical or mathematical reason not to increase the amount of my mortgage as long as I can easily afford the monthly payment?
Okay, fine, so that's the reason we don't like borrowing money to invest.
Now explain why it's good to have a mortgage at all? Don't just say "because a couple hundred a month is a small number". That's not a reason, it's just a single, incredibly subjective and situational factoid. Is there a logical or mathematical reason not to increase the amount of my mortgage as long as I can easily afford the monthly payment?
> Not only is it somewhat risky
Sort of depends on the investments doesn't it?
Sure, if you sink every penny into penny stocks or crypto you are definitely running a huge gamble. On the other hand, there are non-stock market investments that are perfectly safe. Go grab some TIPS/iBonds for the full amount of purchase. Or maybe go a little riskier and grab some bond index funds. Both of those options aren't playing the stock market.
If you wanted something a little more risky but not "throw it all on GME" then grab an ETF like VOO or VTI.
Obviously do what you like. I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to pay off my obligations.
Sort of depends on the investments doesn't it?
Sure, if you sink every penny into penny stocks or crypto you are definitely running a huge gamble. On the other hand, there are non-stock market investments that are perfectly safe. Go grab some TIPS/iBonds for the full amount of purchase. Or maybe go a little riskier and grab some bond index funds. Both of those options aren't playing the stock market.
If you wanted something a little more risky but not "throw it all on GME" then grab an ETF like VOO or VTI.
Obviously do what you like. I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to pay off my obligations.
Plenty of rock solid investments have failed throughout history. :).
I would never tell anyone how to spend their money, I'm just bringing up a counter point to the conversation.
I would never tell anyone how to spend their money, I'm just bringing up a counter point to the conversation.
Over the past few years, borrowing money at 0%APR to put into the stock market has been very profitable.
A lot of people are probably getting used to that idea, and if/when the market turns its going to be messy.
A lot of people are probably getting used to that idea, and if/when the market turns its going to be messy.
that's exactly why I do the free 0% for 1 year on big payment plans. Let me keep my money in my investments longer. Yes I do have the money, but I don't want to easily give it up. Paypal just introduced like a 'spread the payments out for 3 months' options with 0% interest. Its awesome stuff.
That's exactly how I have used Affirm in the past ;)
If you pay your balance in full each month every card is 0% forever, at least in the U.K.
At this moment in the US at least Bank of America, Discover, Chase, Citi & Capital One have publicly available offers for cards with 15 - 18 months of zero interest. All but the Chase (Slate) & Citi (Diamond) offer rewards of 1% back or better.
It is very common to get a credit limit in the range of $10-20k on these cards, one could easily put all expenses on a 0% interest card, make minimum payments and put the amount of the statement balance in a high yield savings account until the promotional interest ends.
In total one would get negative interest in the amount of the rewards (say 1.25% average) plus the 15+ month yield on the cash stored away.
It is very common to get a credit limit in the range of $10-20k on these cards, one could easily put all expenses on a 0% interest card, make minimum payments and put the amount of the statement balance in a high yield savings account until the promotional interest ends.
In total one would get negative interest in the amount of the rewards (say 1.25% average) plus the 15+ month yield on the cash stored away.
That's basically what I do: put most purchases on a decent Chase rewards card, and pay the statement balance each month. I haven't paid a penny of credit card interest in many years.
This is also true in the US - but not at all what the parent comment meant.
If you pay the balance in full every month - you have spent $2000 on a $2000 mattress by the end of the month. This exposes you to ~30 days of inflation and you will have paid no interest.
If you pay 0% APR over a twelve month period, and make installment payments until making a single lump sum to close out the line of credit at the end of twelve months - you are exposed to something closer to ~365 days of inflation (depending on the installment payments and the lump sum). You will have also paid no interest.
If we assume roughly 7% yearly inflation, you're paying less real value if you take option number two, because you will have paid $2000, but that same mattress is now worth ~$2140 - You are abusing the time differential between purchase and payment to receive a discount.
That said - this is not the majority of folks using these services.
If you pay the balance in full every month - you have spent $2000 on a $2000 mattress by the end of the month. This exposes you to ~30 days of inflation and you will have paid no interest.
If you pay 0% APR over a twelve month period, and make installment payments until making a single lump sum to close out the line of credit at the end of twelve months - you are exposed to something closer to ~365 days of inflation (depending on the installment payments and the lump sum). You will have also paid no interest.
If we assume roughly 7% yearly inflation, you're paying less real value if you take option number two, because you will have paid $2000, but that same mattress is now worth ~$2140 - You are abusing the time differential between purchase and payment to receive a discount.
That said - this is not the majority of folks using these services.
Minus the depreciation of using the mattress for a year.
Ok - maybe it's more clear if I phrase it this way:
You paid 2022 dollars for a mattress priced in 2021 dollars. Because of inflation, 2022 dollars are worth less than 2021 dollars (each 2022 dollar is worth ~93% of a 2021 dollar, if we have ~7% inflation)
The mattress would have cost you $2000 2021 dollars if you paid for it immediately. But because you paid the 2021 price tag with 2022 dollars, you are receiving a discount: 2000 * .93 = $1860. You are only paying $1860 2021 dollars, vs the 2000 you would have paid.
Now - and this is very important - none of this matters if you're just shoving those dollars under your mattress for a year. You have to be taking advantage of the inflation by buying an asset that holds its real value over time, and then exchanging it back for the nominal value in 2022.
As an example - assume that we have ~7% inflation, and the total stock market is exactly flat: it neither gains nor loses value compared to inflation (its real value stays the same). You have exactly $2000, and the mattress costs exactly $2000.
Option 1: you pay right now. End result: you have 0 dollars.
Option 2: you pay one year from now, and invest the 2000 in the market until then. End result: after 1 year, when you sell you investments, you have 2140 dollars. you pay 2000 for the mattress. End result: you have 140 dollars.
That's the discount.
Now - the Corollary to this is that you have taken on risk. It's possible that the asset you buy won't hold real value compared to inflation. So while you stand to potentially make 140 bucks in a neutral situation, you also might end up losing money on the assets you buy, and not being able to pay the 2000 dollars.
Such is life.
You paid 2022 dollars for a mattress priced in 2021 dollars. Because of inflation, 2022 dollars are worth less than 2021 dollars (each 2022 dollar is worth ~93% of a 2021 dollar, if we have ~7% inflation)
The mattress would have cost you $2000 2021 dollars if you paid for it immediately. But because you paid the 2021 price tag with 2022 dollars, you are receiving a discount: 2000 * .93 = $1860. You are only paying $1860 2021 dollars, vs the 2000 you would have paid.
Now - and this is very important - none of this matters if you're just shoving those dollars under your mattress for a year. You have to be taking advantage of the inflation by buying an asset that holds its real value over time, and then exchanging it back for the nominal value in 2022.
As an example - assume that we have ~7% inflation, and the total stock market is exactly flat: it neither gains nor loses value compared to inflation (its real value stays the same). You have exactly $2000, and the mattress costs exactly $2000.
Option 1: you pay right now. End result: you have 0 dollars.
Option 2: you pay one year from now, and invest the 2000 in the market until then. End result: after 1 year, when you sell you investments, you have 2140 dollars. you pay 2000 for the mattress. End result: you have 140 dollars.
That's the discount.
Now - the Corollary to this is that you have taken on risk. It's possible that the asset you buy won't hold real value compared to inflation. So while you stand to potentially make 140 bucks in a neutral situation, you also might end up losing money on the assets you buy, and not being able to pay the 2000 dollars.
Such is life.
Same thing in the US, that's how I use my cards. They're a proxy for purchase and identity protection.
Yes, but then you aren't using it as a 12 month loan. You're using it as a one month loan. That is explicitly not what the person you're responding to is looking for.
I had poor credit from student loans and Affirm was very generous to me when other banks weren't. Affirm helped lay the foundations to rebuilding my credit. They've been good for at least my case
> helped lay the foundations to rebuilding my credit
Does Affirm report paid-off loans to credit agencies?
Does Affirm report paid-off loans to credit agencies?
Yes. They also report each payment (had an Affirm loan for an Aviron row machine, as it was the only way to buy it, which is a whole other story).
I have had at this point at least a dozen Affirm BNPL loans, all paid.
There's not a single Affirm tradeline on any of my credit reports.
There's not a single Affirm tradeline on any of my credit reports.
Odd. It’s on my most recent tri merge credit report a lender pulled (and provided me) for a recent RE refinance. Looks like they are selective about which loans they report? My purchase was ~$2k, with 12 monthly payments.
https://helpcenter.affirm.com/s/article/reporting-to-credit-...
https://helpcenter.affirm.com/s/article/reporting-to-credit-...
How was Affirm generous? Did they waive interest?
Poor credit means you’re not getting credit cards beyond measly ones
It's funny because giving people with poor credit loans they couldn't repay is exactly what led to the financial crisis and what we villainized the banks for.
This is only true in a vague and mostly irrelevant manner.
Yes - we gave people with poor credit mortgages to buy homes, and yes that did lead to the financial crisis, but not because they were poor and had bad credit.
It was because the loans were very large, and were backed by the supposed value of the home the person was buying. Then packaged in ways that hid the risk until the last minute - making those assets toxic when the housing bubble popped.
For small personal loans, there are not the same sort of systemic risks.
Yes - we gave people with poor credit mortgages to buy homes, and yes that did lead to the financial crisis, but not because they were poor and had bad credit.
It was because the loans were very large, and were backed by the supposed value of the home the person was buying. Then packaged in ways that hid the risk until the last minute - making those assets toxic when the housing bubble popped.
For small personal loans, there are not the same sort of systemic risks.
I can understand the value prop to the consumer - but I have a harder time understanding why it's an actual business, and why existing credit card companies or other lenders can't eat their lunch with the flip of a switch.
Here's patio11's write-up of the value to the business side:
https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/buy-now-pay-later/
Also discussion thread for aforementioned piece: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841940
https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/buy-now-pay-later/
Also discussion thread for aforementioned piece: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841940
Affirm doesn't list their B2B pricing on their website, but credit cards typically charge up to 5% of the total purchase price in processing fees. It wouldn't be hard for a challenging upstart to make a solid business that just charges less. That's probably not the primary revenue driver for most BNPL companies though.
You've also seen credit card companies change their offerings to compete with the BNPL model. One of my credit cards has a "plan it" feature for large purchases, which allows you pay it of in a shorter period of time for a lower interest rate and without incurring interest charges on your month-to-month purchases.
You've also seen credit card companies change their offerings to compete with the BNPL model. One of my credit cards has a "plan it" feature for large purchases, which allows you pay it of in a shorter period of time for a lower interest rate and without incurring interest charges on your month-to-month purchases.
> credit cards typically charge up to 5% of the total purchase price in processing fees
Source? I thought it’s 2 to 3%.
Source? I thought it’s 2 to 3%.
Credit Cards are 2-4% + 0.1-0.3/transaction depending on your volume. Small businesses would pay the max on the flat and near it on the percentage.
Affirm and similar were 6% last time I talked to them (admittedly 3-4 years ago), and represented a far superior value proposition for a lot of customers because it gives them a longer period of time and forces them onto a payment schedule.
Affirm and similar were 6% last time I talked to them (admittedly 3-4 years ago), and represented a far superior value proposition for a lot of customers because it gives them a longer period of time and forces them onto a payment schedule.
there's also a flat fee per transaction (eg, 3.25% + $0.10). this can make the effective rate pretty high for small purchases.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/credit-card-processing/intercha...
https://www.valuepenguin.com/credit-card-processing/intercha...
Sure, 2-3% if you're WalMart. If you're (small respectable retailer) you'll be paying three times that and if you're a tiny retailer you'll be paying five times that.
Nobody is paying 10-15% in credit card fees regardless of their size. This is just blatantly wrong.
I wouldn't say nobody. High-risk payment processors can have rates that high.
Hi! Affirms scores (evaluates the risk) of each transaction in real time, which allows then to have reasonably low bad rates. Very few lenders can do it.
Until there's a credit crunch or a recession, in which case all that "real-time" risk management will be moot and losses will be massive.
I am curious why you think 'real-time' risk modelling in particular might be deficient? For the record I agree, but my issues are with fintech lenders desire to lend out money too freely (models that are designed to pump lending #'s, not repayment).
Banks have been saying that about online lenders for over decade now…and yet LendingClub, Upstart and SoFi loan books are still fine (and this three companies are taking 1/3 of all personal loan originations in the US)
We haven’t had a real recession in over 10 years, so that makes sense. Unless you count the very brief one back in mid 2020, which was mitigated by a flood of federal and state dollars, mortgage and student loan moratoriums, etc.
Why is this an advantage? The factors in assessing the risk are the creditworthiness of the customer and the amount. Also, I find it hard to believe that the creditworthiness of a customer actually fluctuates fast enough for Affirm to be able to do some arbitrage on it.
[deleted]
ive used them for a 12 month 0% interest. why not let them eat inflation for me, and I can put my money elsewhere
Where will you put the money you’ve saved to beat inflation? When the market is good I’d say this Is a good plan but when the market is bad the only place that makes sense Is a HYSA
The appeal, as I understand it (and I'm 100% an out-of-his-field armchair analyst here), is that this is loan sharking with extra steps ("late fees") for those of us with the worse credit scores that can't get better options. I forgot the exact number, but when I've done the math how much maximum interest you accrue by missing every payment is well beyond usury, as I recall it gets you above 30% interests in 2-3 months (and caps there, which I guess is the silver lining), where as I've considered "interest" to be late fees over the loaned amount.
For every person using this to their advantage as a credit tool, I bet there are a dozen who are just sinking deeper into their debt quick sand.
For every person using this to their advantage as a credit tool, I bet there are a dozen who are just sinking deeper into their debt quick sand.
The innovation isn’t the credit terms—-it’s A/B testing copy on the item & checkout page of e-commerce.
Quoting on-demand loan pricing with clearer upfront payment amounts is more intuitive to consumers than “putting it on the credit card”.
Quoting on-demand loan pricing with clearer upfront payment amounts is more intuitive to consumers than “putting it on the credit card”.
There are many purchases I have made with Affirm to take advantage of pay-over-time without interest. In these arrangements I imagine the product is giving Affirm a cut.
Also for bigger purchases, it's better than a credit card. I pay my Amex balance off every month, but during the pandemic I used Affirm to purchase a home gym setup, and paid it over the course of 6 months at a much lower interest rate.
They are definitely not predatory in my view, but I don't have the perspective of a low-income person anymore.
Also for bigger purchases, it's better than a credit card. I pay my Amex balance off every month, but during the pandemic I used Affirm to purchase a home gym setup, and paid it over the course of 6 months at a much lower interest rate.
They are definitely not predatory in my view, but I don't have the perspective of a low-income person anymore.
Even though I have the money, I've used this to leverage my liquid funds for side gigs. Although I have huge ethical issues with predatory companies like Affirm incentivizing people with less financial self-control to spend beyond their means. Honestly, I think companies like Chime are a bigger issue. They're the payday loan grift of today - especially with their advertising clearly targeting minorities that focuses on paycheck advances.
Chase is now offering further extended payment options much like Affirm, etc.
Might as well just go with your bank itself, instead of adding another 3rd party merchant into the mix.
Might as well just go with your bank itself, instead of adding another 3rd party merchant into the mix.
I think Affirm differentiates based on how it evaluate loan giving
> Credit cards already give you a 30-day grace period before purchases start accruing interest.
This depends on the timing of your transaction and your statement date. If you purchase something 1 day before your statement date, and you don't pay it off that same day, you will accrue interest.
This depends on the timing of your transaction and your statement date. If you purchase something 1 day before your statement date, and you don't pay it off that same day, you will accrue interest.
Other commenters are offering very rational reasons including inflation and the time-value of money, but I think there's a much simpler explanation when it comes to most people: they see a smaller number, it's psychologically easier to pay less today.
Makes sense for when I want to buy a Mattress or piece of equipment equally expensive over 12+ months with no interest. Except in cases where there is an equally good or better arrangement via one of my cards like 18-24 months no interest.
IDK. My credit is great and anytime I'm offered 0% interest over 12-24 months for purchases $1k+ I take it. I much prefer having cash in hand. I don't buy very much stuff in general, but that's a different conversation.
especially if you already have a credit card.
Asked and answered? Majority of Americans have credit cards. An awful lot still don’t, and have shit financial situations that make getting one pretty hard. This is a widely documented phenomenon.
Asked and answered? Majority of Americans have credit cards. An awful lot still don’t, and have shit financial situations that make getting one pretty hard. This is a widely documented phenomenon.
I believe affirm provides 0% APR for a year sometimes?
Or longer. Peloton financing through affirm can be longer than 2 years.
Plus (as long as you do so sparingly), you can easily open a new card and get 1-2 years interest free plus a sign up bonus.
Some merchants will allow 6 months interest free through Affirm. I used them to finance my recent mattress purchase.
[deleted]
Spread out 0% Apr over 5 months instead of 2?
Agreed about them being predatory. They literally lose money for every person that uses their service in the recommended/correct way, and only make money when someone flubs a payment.
Agreed about them being predatory. They literally lose money for every person that uses their service in the recommended/correct way, and only make money when someone flubs a payment.
That’s not how the business model works (or how they’d want it to work anyway). Affirm makes money on transactions in the “correct” way via very high merchant fees.
Merchants will pay affirm a large fee for conversion benefits (e.g better a customer pay $700 even if I lose $50 to affirm fees than for them to pay $0 because they got spooked by the price). Affirm gets the fee. They suffer risks from inflation and nonpayment. Hopefully for them one is larger than the other.
Merchants will pay affirm a large fee for conversion benefits (e.g better a customer pay $700 even if I lose $50 to affirm fees than for them to pay $0 because they got spooked by the price). Affirm gets the fee. They suffer risks from inflation and nonpayment. Hopefully for them one is larger than the other.
If $X spooks someone for a discretionary spend item, then in most cases it’s a bad financial decision for them to pay $X just spread over Y months.
This is a problem with the whole credit system, right? Yes it is a bad system.
Instead of building wealth, we're polishing poverty so that more people can live right up against the edge.
Ah, okay, fair enough then. I didn't realize merchants were paying affirm for this. Though I really hope the merchants look at their data. The only time I've used affirm is when I'm already on the checkout page, literally credit card in hand, where I would have bought the product no matter what. But yeah I'll take a 6 month 0% interest loan instead of a 1 month 0% interest loan.
This is so strange. If Affirm is the creditor why does he not ask Affirm to initiate a chargeback against the merchant? Is this one way Affirm can compete against credit cards, that they do not need to handle this kind of situation?
Affirm does allow people to open a chargeback dispute, but personally I was always taught to go through your credit card/bank.
Also, after reading this account I would be very hesitant to go through Affirm for anything. Chase seems responsive on the other hand.
Also, after reading this account I would be very hesitant to go through Affirm for anything. Chase seems responsive on the other hand.
>personally I was always taught to go through your credit card/bank.
For direct merchant/service provider purchases. Different beast than an installment loan, legally speaking. Regardless of Affirm botching things after the loan was paid, I suspect that the party reversing and withholding payment on the loan was taking a contractually and legally indefensible position.
For direct merchant/service provider purchases. Different beast than an installment loan, legally speaking. Regardless of Affirm botching things after the loan was paid, I suspect that the party reversing and withholding payment on the loan was taking a contractually and legally indefensible position.
The way I'm reading it is that Affirm doesn't know how to handle chargebacks gracefully. Maybe the chargeback system doesn't allow Affirm to "pass along" the chargeback to the merchant?
The issue here, is Affirm is the paying bank. OP effectively opened a credit account with Affirm, and used that credit account to buy something. Then did a chargeback of his payment to the credit account, instead of having the credit account do the chargeback.
I would always suggest trying to initiate a chargeback through the actual payment handler first - if they're unresponsive then I think it's perfectly reasonable to turn to your bank.
This write up looks like a great argument to just try and work through the system first.
This write up looks like a great argument to just try and work through the system first.
I used to find solace in the fact I could call a company and get to someone who can resolve my issue. These days I feel like it's impossible to get to a human, let alone one with any power, without jumping through hoops. It makes me hesitate to put trust into new products/services.
I worked at a large OTA (Online Travel Agency) who adopted Affirm a few years back. I vehemently opposed it and told everyone I could up the chain of command. A vast majority of the folks who used it, are the ones who shouldn't use it. Taking out a two year loan for a 3 day vacation.
[deleted]
Why? It's actually extremely smart financially as stated in another thread where investing that money over 2 years can actually result in a slightly cheaper item.
The general thinking is something like ‘people who can’t pony up the cash right away are more likely to be in a more precarious situation and repeated use of BNPL services can lead to unmeetable obligations either because that person experiences a drop in income or because of many separate loans adding up.’ To some extent the argument feels like saying that poor people are stupid with managing money, which I think isn’t particularly true (though I also suspect there is some correlation in richer societies) but another way to phrase that is that it is much easier to live within your means if you have a lot of means. Certainly people do end up with debt they struggle to afford from schemes like this but it is hard to tell how big an effect it is from reading sob stories in newspapers.
People in the equity class are concerned with financing decisions to arbitrage rate of return spreads. Arbitrating spreads is a game of spreadsheets and math.
People in the poverty class are concerned with budgeting decisions to reduce their consumption as much as humanly tolerable. Reducing consumption is a game of psychological warfare between your future self and your present self.
The smart financial play is irrelevant to someone who needs to be making budgeting plays. Cheap credit leads to good financial decisions and bad budgeting decisions.
People in the poverty class are concerned with budgeting decisions to reduce their consumption as much as humanly tolerable. Reducing consumption is a game of psychological warfare between your future self and your present self.
The smart financial play is irrelevant to someone who needs to be making budgeting plays. Cheap credit leads to good financial decisions and bad budgeting decisions.
Can someone explain to me, i live in a country that doesn't have credit scores, limits loans rates to something sane, why you would use a predatory payment lender that will balloon? Seems like a very high risk gamble especially if you have the money and even higher gamble if you do not have the ability to pay a loan.
The lending industry in the US is very powerful and regularly lobbies congress to reign in consumer protection action from government agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which often issue guidance to limit the offerings of many types of consumer lenders.
The sad truth is that looking poor in the US is culturally frowned upon, which often drives people to overextend their credit in order to fit in. People are quite often encouraged through advertising to improve their status through consumption in the short term at the expense of the long term. It's heinous, but that's America for you.
The sad truth is that looking poor in the US is culturally frowned upon, which often drives people to overextend their credit in order to fit in. People are quite often encouraged through advertising to improve their status through consumption in the short term at the expense of the long term. It's heinous, but that's America for you.
For people who have the money and plan these 0% interest short/medium term loans can be a good deal. However, like this story shows you have to evaluate the reputation of the company because problems can happen. Personally if I were the author I would have just repaid the final payment, waited for the chargeback reversal to put me in a positive balance situation, then worked with Affirm to get a refund. That obviously assumes you have the cash to cover remaking the final payment but that’s just another part of risk mitigation when taking on debt.
Well the good news in America is that you'll probably have to declare bankruptcy over medical bills by the time the loan actually comes due so... problem solved!
I really agree though, buy now pay later seems like a huge fiscal trap. Employment is at will and you have no guarantee about what tomorrow holds so it's good to try and live within your budget whenever possible... this doesn't really go for housing and the like though since those costs are so astronomical you're going to be gambling with debt no matter how long you save first.
I really agree though, buy now pay later seems like a huge fiscal trap. Employment is at will and you have no guarantee about what tomorrow holds so it's good to try and live within your budget whenever possible... this doesn't really go for housing and the like though since those costs are so astronomical you're going to be gambling with debt no matter how long you save first.
My next steps are to file a complaint with the NY State Attorney General's office.
This is a right approach. I wish more people know about this.
This is a right approach. I wish more people know about this.
Also file a complaint with the CFPB.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
Has anyone had luck with this route? I went through the process and was unsatisfied.
CFPB sends the complaint and then the company self reports that they didn't do anything wrong and then the complainer has a chance to say they disagree.
I don't think they intend to resolve specific issues. They seem more like a trendspotter than solutionist.
It's a circuitous path to the solution of get a lawyer. With CFPB, you are basically doing volunteer work for the government, which is fine and possibly noble, but not what you probably set out to accomplish.
I had a major issue with Bank of America that I could not get any support on. I filed a CFPB complaint and was directly contacted by a representative the next day who solved my problem.
Complaints are a big deal for these banks and fintechs; if the complaint level gets high, the auditors show up and plant themselves in the office and start digging. And when they start digging, they find things... things that end in public fines and damaging press releases.
Complaints are a big deal for these banks and fintechs; if the complaint level gets high, the auditors show up and plant themselves in the office and start digging. And when they start digging, they find things... things that end in public fines and damaging press releases.
More like fines for 1/10% of profits made from the illegal behavior.
[deleted]
A cfpb complaint got an issue resolved I had where my credit card issuing bank was refusing to accept that a charge was fraud. I issued the complaint with the exact same information I had given the bank support: that the supposed evidence that it wasn't fraud didn't include my signature and had an incorrect address, and as soon as the cfpb complaint came through the issue was resolved.
Every time I have used it I have gotten a proper response from the company (one case was a clear mistake). But yeah if they don't, there isn't any immediate action from the CFPB. For a bank, you can complain to the actual regulator (OCC for a national bank, Federal Reserve or FDIC for a state bank).
[deleted]
Yeah I certainly think that OP should have given up on customer service sooner and figured out a way to get through to the department of not-fobbing-people-off. This feels like that kind of complaint that, if it arrived in an appropriate format on the desk of some lawyer working for the company, would be quickly forwarded to the relevant department with some note saying ‘Please fix this and let me know when it’s done’.
[deleted]
Filing a complaint is nice, but you’re basically at the mercy of the AG to care enough to do something.
I don't have a comparison to other states or agencies. I have file 2 complaints to NY AG in my life and I got responds in about a week from the people I complained against. One was my very first landlord after college decades ago, the other was a tow truck company about 10 years ago.
That's nice that they cared, but they were under no obligation to respond. To me, this is an issue. We should have systems in place where people are guaranteed to have their issues remedied.
> We should have systems in place where people are guaranteed to have their issues remedied.
That's basically what a lawsuit is--you sue someone and if they don't respond, you generally win by default, but if they do, you have the burden of proving your facts.
That's basically what a lawsuit is--you sue someone and if they don't respond, you generally win by default, but if they do, you have the burden of proving your facts.
You don't just have to prove your facts. You also need to be acquainted with the current law and literally centuries of case-law. The burden is immense for an individual.
Small claims court isn't that demanding.
Another aspect of that is that if you opted out of arbitration is that small claims is a huge hassle for large companies. They will usually deal with you rather than fly some lawyer in.
If you didn't, well, arbitrators are paid by your opponent, and their decision score cards reflect that.
Another aspect of that is that if you opted out of arbitration is that small claims is a huge hassle for large companies. They will usually deal with you rather than fly some lawyer in.
If you didn't, well, arbitrators are paid by your opponent, and their decision score cards reflect that.
> they were under no obligation to respond
Mileage varies by state. The New York AG tends to make not responding very costly, sometimes debilitatingly so, for companies. A letter copying e.g. the Alabama AG is likely to be ignored.
Mileage varies by state. The New York AG tends to make not responding very costly, sometimes debilitatingly so, for companies. A letter copying e.g. the Alabama AG is likely to be ignored.
Do you have experience with the Alabama AG office not responding to a consumer complaint?
A quick google indicates both an online form and a phone number specifically for contacting Alabama AG Office Consumer Specialists: https://www.alabamaag.gov/consumercomplaint
A quick google indicates both an online form and a phone number specifically for contacting Alabama AG Office Consumer Specialists: https://www.alabamaag.gov/consumercomplaint
> Do you have experience with the Alabama AG office not responding to a consumer complaint?
No, but it was a specific example cited by a prior corporate counsel. (We had an irate customer from New Jersey copy their AG. We were informed that Trenton is no Montgomery, the message being that if we didn’t promptly and properly respond their AG’s office would get involved.)
I live in Wyoming, by the way—our AG is likely also easy to contact but hard to get to follow up from. One of the trade-offs of living in a small-budget state.
No, but it was a specific example cited by a prior corporate counsel. (We had an irate customer from New Jersey copy their AG. We were informed that Trenton is no Montgomery, the message being that if we didn’t promptly and properly respond their AG’s office would get involved.)
I live in Wyoming, by the way—our AG is likely also easy to contact but hard to get to follow up from. One of the trade-offs of living in a small-budget state.
>>Filing a complaint is nice, but you’re basically at the mercy of the AG to care enough to do something.
Not in my experience in NY. Some decades ago in NY, I had a problem cancelling a gym membership within legally specified rights. Got nowhere. Sent a letter to the AG, and suddenly like magic, the clouds parted and the matter was resolved in my favor. MA AG is also very responsive.
The real scumbags often will not pay attention, but any biz that has the slightest interest in being around for the long term will definitely take notice when the AG starts to get involved. It is a hornet's nest you do not want kicked anywhere near you.
Not in my experience in NY. Some decades ago in NY, I had a problem cancelling a gym membership within legally specified rights. Got nowhere. Sent a letter to the AG, and suddenly like magic, the clouds parted and the matter was resolved in my favor. MA AG is also very responsive.
The real scumbags often will not pay attention, but any biz that has the slightest interest in being around for the long term will definitely take notice when the AG starts to get involved. It is a hornet's nest you do not want kicked anywhere near you.
Anecdotally it seems like the NY AG and CFPB are often pretty responsive. It at least creates a paper trail.
All these SV fintechs are horrible at customer service. At the very top of that list is Paypal and SoFi. If you want to be in a consumer facing business, we need to force these guys to have min level customer service staff based on number of accounts.
The alternative to horrible customer service is not servicing poor customers. Traditional banks choose that solution. I'm not saying one is better than the other though.
Other times the customer service is designed to be horrible. For example- allowing customers to create an account online, then requiring customers to call over the telephone to close the account (my ISP does this). Very annoying to sit in a phone queue for 20-30 minutes when I should be able to simply click a button that says "Close account." If I was president I would make it criminal.
As someone that never goes in debt and would never use Affirm, I still realize these types of services will impact me.
Just like with high cashback credit cards, they have large merchant comissions, that in the end have to be covered from the other customers to show only a single price.
I end up subsidizing other customers by a tiny amount, and just wish for regulation to stop this micro-theft.
Just like with high cashback credit cards, they have large merchant comissions, that in the end have to be covered from the other customers to show only a single price.
I end up subsidizing other customers by a tiny amount, and just wish for regulation to stop this micro-theft.
Perhaps ask for a cash discount? (obvsly doesn't apply online)
Rule of thumb on chargebacks: Only do them against a vendor you never intend to ever do business with ever again. A lot of companies, especially tech companies, will go absolutely postal if you chargeback them.
Chargebacks against Google can cause your Gmail to get banned, chargebacks against Valve can cost you your entire Steam library. It's plausible legal action could reverse these behaviors, but unless you're prepared and funded to go that route, don't do chargebacks.
Chargebacks against Google can cause your Gmail to get banned, chargebacks against Valve can cost you your entire Steam library. It's plausible legal action could reverse these behaviors, but unless you're prepared and funded to go that route, don't do chargebacks.
I understand the mathematical argument for using these BNPL services, but I wish that we as a society were not so comfortable with debt that some are willing to incur it on a pair of shoes or a fashionable t-shirt. Personally, it gives me the heebie-jeebies.
I work on payments related systems. At Amazon, this meant connecting to banks and being dependent on them. At Snap, we use payment processors to facilitate things relating to payments.
What I've learned is that the U.S. payments infrastructure is quite far behind, it's complicated, and frankly makes building with it more difficult than it should be.
For example. There's this new (as of like 2017 iirc) payment rail called Real Time Payments. Think "ACH transfer" but in <10 minutes 24/7 instead of 3-5 business days.
It's advertised as 24/7 however banks are actually allowed to go offline from 3am - 6am on Sundays (it may be once a month, memory is a bit fuzzy). So if you initiate a payment to a payee who's bank is offline, the payment is "rejected". So now you have to tell your customer "hey sorry, the payment has been rejected, it's not actually going to be available for a few hours".
Also there's no centralized way to tell when banks are down and as far as I know, there was no system built to track which banks are down and which are not. So if you want to avoid sending payments to a bank that's offline, you need to look at the history of payments to see for recent reject codes, have a direct line of communication with the banks, or use a third party API which probably does one of the prior mentioned things.
There's also some fun (sarcasm) edge cases in the state machine for a payment and there's a state of payments where it's said to be completed but actually the payment is in limbo and hasn't been received.
Remember, this is a payment system that was released in the last 5-10 years. Also, only ~70% of banks are onboarded to this payment rail so you have to look at payment destination routing numbers to validate if it's an option or not.
I mention all of this to try and convey the complexity and difficulty of working with the U.S. payment rails directly. I don't know if charges applies in the same manner, but I bet it's just as complicated.
With that said, this is Affirms bread and butter for their business. They should be aware of these things. Build the tools to enable their support team to do their jobs and help customers.
p.s. can't forget that ACH transfers are built to be done in batches for business hours only. That's a whole other topic.
What I've learned is that the U.S. payments infrastructure is quite far behind, it's complicated, and frankly makes building with it more difficult than it should be.
For example. There's this new (as of like 2017 iirc) payment rail called Real Time Payments. Think "ACH transfer" but in <10 minutes 24/7 instead of 3-5 business days.
It's advertised as 24/7 however banks are actually allowed to go offline from 3am - 6am on Sundays (it may be once a month, memory is a bit fuzzy). So if you initiate a payment to a payee who's bank is offline, the payment is "rejected". So now you have to tell your customer "hey sorry, the payment has been rejected, it's not actually going to be available for a few hours".
Also there's no centralized way to tell when banks are down and as far as I know, there was no system built to track which banks are down and which are not. So if you want to avoid sending payments to a bank that's offline, you need to look at the history of payments to see for recent reject codes, have a direct line of communication with the banks, or use a third party API which probably does one of the prior mentioned things.
There's also some fun (sarcasm) edge cases in the state machine for a payment and there's a state of payments where it's said to be completed but actually the payment is in limbo and hasn't been received.
Remember, this is a payment system that was released in the last 5-10 years. Also, only ~70% of banks are onboarded to this payment rail so you have to look at payment destination routing numbers to validate if it's an option or not.
I mention all of this to try and convey the complexity and difficulty of working with the U.S. payment rails directly. I don't know if charges applies in the same manner, but I bet it's just as complicated.
With that said, this is Affirms bread and butter for their business. They should be aware of these things. Build the tools to enable their support team to do their jobs and help customers.
p.s. can't forget that ACH transfers are built to be done in batches for business hours only. That's a whole other topic.
I bought two items on Affirm from the same merchant and they both were defective. I paid using a bank account, affirm will do nothing for me on the items.
I always thought that "Affirm" was a scam. Glad I never went in for one of their plans.
Affirms big selling point, other than offering the checkout flow credit option which reduces bounce rates, is that they have "better" ways of determining if someone can be lended to. Even if a consumer can't qualify for a credit card, Affirm will still cut them a loan.
How true that second claim is and whether Affirm is merely yet another predatory lender, I will leave as an exercise to the reader.
Here's a good deep dive on the BNPL model from Bits About Money: https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/buy-now-pay-later/
How true that second claim is and whether Affirm is merely yet another predatory lender, I will leave as an exercise to the reader.
Here's a good deep dive on the BNPL model from Bits About Money: https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/buy-now-pay-later/
I tried using Affirm once. Apparently the underwriter was "unable to confirm my identity" using my Experian data so I was denied. My credit history is extensive and includes 10+ years of data. So it's not for the lack of credit history. I tried their competitor (Klarna) as well. Their system worked just fine but it was only for $1000. Apparently they have some internal scoring system outside of FICO that helps to determine how much they will loan out. Ended up just foregoing the BNPL process and paying for it directly.
Kind of glad I was denied now.
Kind of glad I was denied now.
It's long past time for credit reporting companies to lose their legal shield against libel.
I don't view this situation as unique to Affirm in any way shape or form. I had a very similar situation with a chargeback scenario with my Apple card with fraudulent in-app purchases. The support infrastructure between bank - middleman - creditor is broken everywhere, and this is Apple and Goldman Sachs we are talking about.
I almost used Affirm the other day because deferring payments at 0% is attractive, but then I realized it would result in a hard credit inquiry, equivalent to opening a new line of credit. (Which it sort of is, but why defer $200 when you could open a real credit card and get introductory 0% for 18 months on potentially $10k or more instead? Even if you only spend $200 on your new credit card, presumably this is better for your credit score as you would be using a tiny fraction of the available credit on that account.)
Getting a loan for such a small amount and for an online transaction, sounds like a poor decision. I honestly don't understand people using these tools, they seem a recipe for disaster.
When I didn't have money to purchase the things I wanted I saved and then purchased the item, I didn't get a loan.
A chargeback to Affirm sounds like a bureaucracy nightmare, couldn't the op contact Affirm and get them to chargeback the merchant? Do they have a procedure for this?
That said, Affirm exhibited terrible customer support and for that they should be held accountable.
A chargeback to Affirm sounds like a bureaucracy nightmare, couldn't the op contact Affirm and get them to chargeback the merchant? Do they have a procedure for this?
That said, Affirm exhibited terrible customer support and for that they should be held accountable.
Fintechs are just neo banks, but with far worse customer service, far less supervision, and tech company valuations. BNPL companies are especially in for a reckoning as sanity slowly returns to markets.
[deleted]
OP may not realize how bad the dispute process is with banks.
When a merchant gets a charge disputed, they may not know about the dispute for many days. Then, if the customer lifts the dispute, the banks most often continue to hold the funds, and not release any information to the merchant for 90 days.
It's horrible for merchants and customers.
When a merchant gets a charge disputed, they may not know about the dispute for many days. Then, if the customer lifts the dispute, the banks most often continue to hold the funds, and not release any information to the merchant for 90 days.
It's horrible for merchants and customers.
Etsy sellers have experience with that. There’s many clips on TikTok of Etsy sellers complaining about customers being unreasonable. Such as “I ordered the wrong thing. Send me the correct one!” Then the seller says “ok, can you send the wrong one back?”, the buyer says “no. Here’s a chargeback.”
Then there’s buyers who just use chargebacks as a way to get free stuff. Buyer asks for a refund, seller asks for it back (even offering to pay for shipping), buyer says no and issues a chargeback.
Then there’s buyers who just use chargebacks as a way to get free stuff. Buyer asks for a refund, seller asks for it back (even offering to pay for shipping), buyer says no and issues a chargeback.
Worth bearing in mind that the smooth operation of society depends on not just rules and processes, but also the goodwill, agency, and common sense of humans within it. Where such things are degraded, through politicisation, bad education, or simply rubbish food, then that society will begin to fail.
Don’t mess with finance companies,
I worked at one indirectly that was part of a major bank.
They used to even have local branches (stores in Wells Fargo parlance).
Citi, Wells, etc so had them back in the day before they were shamed into shutting them down.
Financing small purchases is just bad financial hygiene.
I worked at one indirectly that was part of a major bank.
They used to even have local branches (stores in Wells Fargo parlance).
Citi, Wells, etc so had them back in the day before they were shamed into shutting them down.
Financing small purchases is just bad financial hygiene.
> tldr: I'll never use Affirm again because when there are issues with their payment system that could severely impact your credit score for years, their customer support is unequipped to help and their underlying support infrastructure is poorly designed.
The story of pretty much EVERY startup. What will it take to get these clowns to focus on customer service and properly build out infrastructure? How much is enough fintech recklessness?
The story of pretty much EVERY startup. What will it take to get these clowns to focus on customer service and properly build out infrastructure? How much is enough fintech recklessness?
> What will it take to get these clowns to focus on customer service and properly build out infrastructure?
Simple: Regulations with teeth.
There's a reason why this kind of service isn't popular in Europe - not just are us Europeans more averse to debt in general and our banking doesn't rely on paper checks (which eliminates payday loan services and other check-associated bullshit), but one of the core benefits that the EU provides to its citizens is consumer protection. The EU parliament doesn't have much else under its authority which is immediately visible to every consumer, so they put in an extra effort to make life in the EU easier.
Simple: Regulations with teeth.
There's a reason why this kind of service isn't popular in Europe - not just are us Europeans more averse to debt in general and our banking doesn't rely on paper checks (which eliminates payday loan services and other check-associated bullshit), but one of the core benefits that the EU provides to its citizens is consumer protection. The EU parliament doesn't have much else under its authority which is immediately visible to every consumer, so they put in an extra effort to make life in the EU easier.
I have no idea what an Affirm is supposed to be; would people please include some context or otherwise try to be helpful when they post service complaints?
Yeah not much background in this article. Affirm is a "buy now, pay later" service (BNPL). It's basically just personal loans with the addition of a fee charged to merchants (on the premise that providing financing will attract more customers to the merchant). Very similar to the layaway offered by some merchants directly but Affirm offers this as a service.
Affirm is a unicorn and IPO'd in 20221. It has quite a few competitors in the BNPL space like Klarna and Afterpay. So far they all lose a lot of money.
Affirm is a unicorn and IPO'd in 20221. It has quite a few competitors in the BNPL space like Klarna and Afterpay. So far they all lose a lot of money.
Reading stuff like this makes me think that Elizabeth Holmes would have been fine if she weren't in a regulated space that tied into people's health.
It’s unfortunate for society that pretty damn evil people would be fine in most other life scenarios.
+1 to this. Thanks for the heads up.
I had a similar experience years ago with Comcast/Xfinity and found many others who did too since. (/VIN-DI-CATION!)
I had a similar experience years ago with Comcast/Xfinity and found many others who did too since. (/VIN-DI-CATION!)
Not victim blaming. Do not do payments. You either have the money or you don't. Save your money, buy it when you have it fully.
There is a reasonable case made upthread that if you pay it off on time, 0% interest for a few months, especially with inflation, can be a good financial move.
$300 over six weeks? Are you seriously suggesting this makes sense?
Would you say that's the case for bigger ticket, long lived items, such as houses or cars?
I think those are reasonable outliers, and that businesses like Affirm are unlikely to provide financing for those types of transactions.
Misread as Affrin and expected story about nasal spray addiction.
Who takes a loan for a $271 purchase?
TONS of people. And these companies live off of the fees for unpaid "buy now, pay later" mini-loans. Say what you want about freedoms, but it's just incredibly scummy to trick people who don't know better into signing up for something like this. If it was up to me, I'd just ban that sort of business.
Does Affirm actually report to the credit bureaus? It's my understanding that they do not, but perhaps I am misinformed.
Also it’s hard to know if they will.
I had a couple cases where in one situation bank and another a business claimed I owed them and it would show up on my credit report. I didn’t pay either.
North ever showed up.
I had a couple cases where in one situation bank and another a business claimed I owed them and it would show up on my credit report. I didn’t pay either.
North ever showed up.
Why would they not? One of the few weapons a lender has against a client is their credit score.
My Affirm loan showed up on my credit.
In my experience, yes they do.
This seems like fraud
I feel like all these online "buy now pay later" services are just there to prey on poor people
IMHO they are the title/payday loan operators of the web, like their real world counterparts they prey on the poor.
Unlike those real-world counterparts, they don't make money. Also unlike the real-world ones, they're making loans so risky that they're apparently having issues selling even the highest-rated ABS tranches right now.
> Unlike those real-world counterparts, they don't make money.
What? How are they in business, then? Is this just the reverse side of "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"? (I'd assumed they ended up being profitable off of people not paying things off in the 0% time)
What? How are they in business, then? Is this just the reverse side of "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"? (I'd assumed they ended up being profitable off of people not paying things off in the 0% time)
I've never (in my experience) seen credit-poor customers get approved by Affirm (or any other BNPL).
I have, however, seen Affirm's other scummy side -- they have a special 'workflow' with a partnership with Katapult, a lease-to-own provider, where the merchant can take an Affirm denial and push it to Katapult for an even more predatory rent-to-own loan at higher rates.
I have, however, seen Affirm's other scummy side -- they have a special 'workflow' with a partnership with Katapult, a lease-to-own provider, where the merchant can take an Affirm denial and push it to Katapult for an even more predatory rent-to-own loan at higher rates.
They definitely do: https://i.imgur.com/ZFiHz3s.png
I have rarely found anything that is capitalist and has a demographic interest in financially marginalized people ever to be ethical. When you match desperation with a lower possibility of solid education, "fiduciary responsibility to satisfy the investors" can never be capped. That goes same for the proverbial social business.
Totally Agreed.
[deleted]
"I'm fortunate to be in a financial position where damage to my credit score wouldn't be the end of the world.."
Then why did you bother using a pay later scheme for a few hundred dollars on some sketch retailer?
This is like the person that chose to walk down a dark alley in a large unfamiliar city and can't believe they got mugged.
Then why did you bother using a pay later scheme for a few hundred dollars on some sketch retailer?
This is like the person that chose to walk down a dark alley in a large unfamiliar city and can't believe they got mugged.
The incentive seems pretty obvious to me. You can take the money you save, put it into an ultraconservative investment vehicle, and effectively end up paying less money overall for the same purchase. Most people who finance through these providers do not run into any problems.
To put it another way, if you don't take advantage of 0% APR financing, you are effectively paying a surcharge to not have to deal with the additional complexity/risk of investing/financing/dealing with credit agencies. It's not clear to me at all you are getting your money's worth as a result of paying that higher price.
Fractional reserve banking is slanted to benefit people who take out debt and companies like Affirm allow somebody who may not be in the market for a Home or a Car to leverage their creditworthiness. Not using your available credit is not much different than keeping your cash under your bed instead of in an investment vehicle. People are just responding to the incentives created by central bankers and do bizarre yet rational things like take out loans for things they can afford out of pocket.
To put it another way, if you don't take advantage of 0% APR financing, you are effectively paying a surcharge to not have to deal with the additional complexity/risk of investing/financing/dealing with credit agencies. It's not clear to me at all you are getting your money's worth as a result of paying that higher price.
Fractional reserve banking is slanted to benefit people who take out debt and companies like Affirm allow somebody who may not be in the market for a Home or a Car to leverage their creditworthiness. Not using your available credit is not much different than keeping your cash under your bed instead of in an investment vehicle. People are just responding to the incentives created by central bankers and do bizarre yet rational things like take out loans for things they can afford out of pocket.
> ultraconservative investment vehicle
Which pays less than 1% APR. Over six weeks. On a purchase of $271. Congratulations, you saved 31¢.
Which pays less than 1% APR. Over six weeks. On a purchase of $271. Congratulations, you saved 31¢.
I probably wouldn’t bother for a $271 purchase but if we’re talking a several thousand dollar computer financed over a year, sure. Worth a few bucks.
You'll get back 1$ every 1000$.
(1000 x 0.01 x 6 / 52).
8$ if you invest in the market long term and get a 8% return.
Not worth the headache in any case. This is a tool to allow poor people to get even more in debt.
Not worth the headache in any case. This is a tool to allow poor people to get even more in debt.
[deleted]
FounderBurr(1)
But the developers got all their tickets closed this sprint. Because at the end of the day, ticking boxes is what matters, not actually providing business value. Just ask your scrum "master".
I find it hard to blame anybody but the company leadership for issues like this. They took on responsibility for the company, both its successes and failures.
It's the company leadership's fault for judging everybody on an easily gameable metric rather than spending any time managing.
Sounds like the only harm done to you is some unpleasant emails, and some phone calls that were also rather unpleasant that you initiated. Their automated systems and support seem rather terrible(unfortunately normal). You might have just sent these bad automated emails to your spam folder and been just fine.
Everything else is based on some imagined harm that might or might not come to you or some other imaginary person at some point in the future.
I used to get worked up about stuff like this but now I ignore it and my credit is pretty much perfect still. My mental state is much improved.
I might be not understanding the situation completely though.
Everything else is based on some imagined harm that might or might not come to you or some other imaginary person at some point in the future.
I used to get worked up about stuff like this but now I ignore it and my credit is pretty much perfect still. My mental state is much improved.
I might be not understanding the situation completely though.
> Everything else is based on some imagined harm that might or might not come to you or some other imaginary person at some point in the future.
They threatened to report this to a credit rating agency. At any given time it's probably not a big deal assuming 1) you don't need to replace your car or sign a lease or get a personal loan around that time and 2) you know that you can dispute negative marks on your credit report and you know how to do that.
I didn't know how to do that until I had my identity stolen and I'm definitely more credit savvy than most from my cc churning days
They threatened to report this to a credit rating agency. At any given time it's probably not a big deal assuming 1) you don't need to replace your car or sign a lease or get a personal loan around that time and 2) you know that you can dispute negative marks on your credit report and you know how to do that.
I didn't know how to do that until I had my identity stolen and I'm definitely more credit savvy than most from my cc churning days
Disputing a negative hit to your credit score does not mean it gets removed. You need to have excellent documentation, which the author does but not everyone is so meticulous throughout a months-long dispute.
Also, credit scores are used now for some job applications. You can’t get some jobs without a good credit score. If you refuse to sign a waiver allowing the potential employer access to your credit score, you forfeit the job. Such jobs are often in the financial sector where employers want to make sure you do not have an incentive to steal.
Also, credit scores are used now for some job applications. You can’t get some jobs without a good credit score. If you refuse to sign a waiver allowing the potential employer access to your credit score, you forfeit the job. Such jobs are often in the financial sector where employers want to make sure you do not have an incentive to steal.
> Disputing a negative hit to your credit score does not mean it gets removed.
I believe it usually does get removed immediately, but temporarily, until the credit reporting agency (CRA) has come to a decision on the case.
I've heard of folks closing on mortgages soon and out of nowhere, a past dispute winds up on their credit report as a negative item, putting the mortgage closing at risk. So they immediately dispute it to resolve the issue in the short-term.
I believe it usually does get removed immediately, but temporarily, until the credit reporting agency (CRA) has come to a decision on the case.
I've heard of folks closing on mortgages soon and out of nowhere, a past dispute winds up on their credit report as a negative item, putting the mortgage closing at risk. So they immediately dispute it to resolve the issue in the short-term.
> They threatened to report this to a credit rating agency. At any given time it's probably not a big deal assuming 1) you don't need to replace your car or sign a lease or get a personal loan around that time and 2) you know that you can dispute negative marks on your credit report and you know how to do that.
or 3) it's just a bluff or 4) they do this all the time and the hit is so minimal that it won't even register, because of Affirm's disrepute.
or 3) it's just a bluff or 4) they do this all the time and the hit is so minimal that it won't even register, because of Affirm's disrepute.