I agree Richard wrote a good summary and I agree with most of it. The last paragraph says "you've probably decided that occupation/industry prescreening is more trouble than it's worth." That's his opinion. For many others I talk to, it IS worth it. The bottom line is, it's okay to deny someone for any reason you want - other than a protected class reason. What would you list as a reason for denial? Just be honest. I also agree you need to apply this consistently.

If someone moonlighted as a stripper, I wouldn't hire them. Discriminatory? Yes. Illegal? No. I have that right and working for me is not a right.

I agree with Darth....fascinating!!

I agree and second the motion....with RR Joker.

Yes, that is no more than my opinion. As you say, disqualifiers are business decisions and I don't disagree with your conclusion.

This practice will always create tension between the camp that focuses more on reputational risk and those whose main concern is the legal headaches that can result from credit decisions that appear to be made on an illogical basis. Both are business risks.

I share the concerns that you, Becca, and others raise about the explanation that will be stated in the AANs sent to the strippers who pass the first 5 "C"s of credit with flying colors and only fail on #6--clothed. The need for AANs to be brutally honest increases as the reasons for the credit decision become less and less logical. Knowing the day will come when lenders must issue AANs dealing entirely with the 6th "C", it's imperative that policy and procedure is crystal clear, and leaves no room for personal attitudes. The Supreme Court can operate with a "know it when we see it" standard, but the rest of us have to define "it" in advance.

I feel like banks who have this sort of policy are, in a sense, kicking the can down the road. If every bank in America tomorrow suddenly stopped all lending to people who are strippers, bartenders, tattoo artists, (insert profession you are offended by), i believe there would be legislation in a year stopping such "discrimination".

The reputational risk does run both ways. I can appreciate the bank's decision about the reputational risk should it be disclosed if they are lending to people in "gutter industries". Conversely, if the declined applicants go to the media (social, print, mass, etc.) it could also become a reputational issue of the bank judging the individual workers in those industries by their perception of the industries being good or bad.

I think the discussion presented many facets of lending, with defendable positions on both sides.

VERY well stated, Richard.


That made me laugh out loud!

My last comment on this (I hope, but don't promise) is that I'm not arguing for a policy that says you shouldn't make loans to strippers (or any other "unethical" business). My involvement was simply to point out people were making up rules that don't exist. In my opinion, the first 8 or 10 posts to this thread appeared to say "you have to make this loan". No you don't. There may be other risks for not making a loan to an "unethical business" (however, you define that), but they are not ECOA or UDAP risks.

Is it odd that I read David's post in his voice?

!!! Me too!

Too funny - that means we've all listened to him, too much perhaps?

I don't think the term "too much" exists where David is concerned......could listen to him all day, I think.

I sure never said " you have to make this loan". I just said there were certainly risks involved with having such a policy.

You all make me laugh!

Same here.

😊

Good discussion, sorry I was unavailable for a few days.

Applaud Richard's response!!
Nice debate and no snarky attacks, yeah!

For my own post, wasn't saying they had to make the loan (agree with David here), only that I think their policy is unfair. But that's just my opinion. I feel that credit decisions should be based on credit, not where they work, the color of their hair, how many tats they have, etc.