Reading Nora and Steph's posts about being underwater on your mortgages, and that you won't walk away because you want to play by the rules, makes me very sad. Those rules exist only to keep you down, not to make anything "fair" to anybody. In these specific circumstances, I think you guys are being harmed far more by playing by the rules than you would be by ditching them.

I feel so badly for everyone that is underwater in their mortgage and has such difficult decisions to make. Nora, I really hope your new renter works out and you don't have to make any difficult decisions immediately.

My oil delivery has finally arrived, which means I can turn the heat back on, which is good because it is snowing out. Apparently winter has been holding back until today. We're supposed to meet the seller tonight at the house to go over a few things, and I am hoping we don't have to cancel due to snow.

Credit scores can also affect your insurance rates. It's so fucked up. I've learned a lot listening to Clark Howard, but much of it is very depressing.

A slight quibble, Sean. Credit score is more your track history of paying back what you borrow, which lenders use to predict how likely you are to pay back in the future (and, as others have pointed out here, other people use for other purposes). Which isn't quite the same thing as how profitable you are as a borrower.

To be fair, a borrower who doesn't pay back probably isn't very profitable. But lenders adjust for that by making it more expensive for people with low credit scores to borrow.

And no, I'm not going to defend the current system.

Being a crap borrower doesn't make me shady, but it's an employer's market, so there you go. They do also check my arrest record, etc, and have my fingerprints on file. I'm not exactly surprised.

Being a "crap borrower" according to an opaque, proprietary formula (meaning they could just be flipping a coin) has nothing to do with anything, whereas your arrest record and fingerprints are quite pertinent, especially if you're in a position that handles cash.

Also one of the problems is that service companies make huge profits in depo. So where the actual paper loses, the company you are dealing with earns revenue if you walk away unless they are the same company.

Not sure if the bank eats the cost or if you're responsible.

It depends. Most of the time it's the bank. Another thing to be concerned about is the tax liability on the forgiven debt. If you're going to walk away from the house, do it before the end of 2013. That's when the law expires that eliminates the tax burden. After that, it will be considered income again and the owner is responsible for paying tax on it.

I have obviously just had this conversation with the accountant. Still don't know what I'm going to do.

That information can have NO POSSIBLE BEARING on your fitness for any position. Or anything else really.

Sean, unfortunately ita ! is right. You can't get a security clearance, work in the financial sector, or pass the ethics requirements of many professional occupations (lawyer, CPA, etc.) with lousy credit and unpaid debt. Any position that carries fiduciary responsibility usually has good credit as a requirement of the job.

(Still struggling. Good days and bad. Trying not to let lizard brain ruin everything.)

A slight quibble, Sean. Credit score is more your track history of paying back what you borrow, which lenders use to predict how likely you are to pay back in the future (and, as others have pointed out here, other people use for other purposes). Which isn't quite the same thing as how profitable you are as a borrower.

True, probably a better way to put it.

And to be clear, my problem is not with the purported purpose of the number, but with the opaqueness and propriety, and that those extra-normal uses of credit scores are not appropriate because of that.

an opaque, proprietary formula

Well, my job says they look at my credit report, so it's moot to me. I didn't know employers would just look at the number. They seriously do that?

You can't get a security clearance, work in the financial sector, or pass the ethics requirements of many professional occupations (lawyer, CPA, etc.) with lousy credit and unpaid debt. Any position that carries fiduciary responsibility usually has good credit as a requirement of the job.

I understand that. I'm saying that the credit scores as they stand now are not appropriate for measuring those thing, because that's not what credit scores measure.

I don't have a problem with requiring certain positions to meet certain eligibility requirements, I'm saying that using credit scores the way they are used for hiring is like saying you want to check someone's security fitness by checking their background, and then telling them they failed because they wore yellow shoes.

They are saying they are doing one thing, but (whether they are aware of it or not) they are actually doing something else.