U.S. patent application number 09/185201 was filed with the patent office on 2002-01-17 for method and apparatus for real time on line credit approval.
Invention is credited to CAI, YINZI, COLTRELL, TIMOTHY J., DOWHAN, DAVID W., LENT, JEREMY R., LENT, MARY, MEEKS, ERIC R..
Application Number | 20020007341 09/185201 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 22680019 |
Filed Date | 2002-01-17 |
United States Patent
Application |
20020007341 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
LENT, JEREMY R. ; et
al. |
January 17, 2002 |
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REAL TIME ON LINE CREDIT APPROVAL
Abstract
A system and method are disclosed for providing real time
approval of credit over a network. The method includes obtaining
applicant data from an applicant. The applicant data is analyzed
into a form suitable for directly obtaining a credit report from a
credit bureau for the applicant. A credit report having credit
report data is obtained from a credit bureau for the applicant. It
is then determined whether to accept the applicant using the credit
report data and it is communicated to the applicant that the
applicant has been approved.
Inventors: |
LENT, JEREMY R.; (CORTE
MADERA, CA) ; LENT, MARY; (CORTE MADERA, CA) ;
MEEKS, ERIC R.; (SAN FRANCISCO, CA) ; CAI, YINZI;
(FREMONT, CA) ; COLTRELL, TIMOTHY J.; (DANVILLE,
CA) ; DOWHAN, DAVID W.; (MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
LEE VAN PELT
RITTER VAN PELT & YI
4906 EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 205
LOS ALTOS
CA
94022
|
Family ID: |
22680019 |
Appl. No.: |
09/185201 |
Filed: |
November 3, 1998 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/38 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 40/025 20130101;
G06Q 40/08 20130101; G06Q 30/06 20130101; G06Q 40/02 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/38 |
International
Class: |
G06F 017/60 |
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network comprising: obtaining applicant data from an applicant;
processing the applicant data into a form suitable for directly
obtaining a credit report from a credit bureau for the applicant;
obtaining a credit report having credit report data from a credit
bureau for the applicant; determining whether to accept the
applicant using the credit report data; and communicating to the
applicant that the applicant has been approved.
2. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 further including determining whether
to continue to process, or reject, the applicant based on the
applicant data prior to obtaining a credit report from a credit
bureau for the applicant.
3. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein the network is the
Internet.
4. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein analyzing the applicant data
into a form suitable for directly obtaining a credit report from a
credit bureau includes parsing the applicant data into fields.
5. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein analyzing the applicant data
into a form suitable for directly obtaining a credit report from a
credit bureau includes parsing the applicant data into fields and
displaying those fields to the applicant for editing.
6. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 further including checking whether
the applicant data is a duplicate of previously entered applicant
information.
7. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 6 further including finding the
previously entered applicant information and allowing the applicant
to apply using that information.
8. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 6 further including determining if the
previously entered applicant information predates a duplication
cutoff date.
9. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein determining whether to accept
the applicant based on the credit report data includes
automatically accepting the applicant if the applicant has an
applicant FICO score that exceeds an acceptance threshold.
10. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein determining whether to accept
the applicant based on the credit report data includes
automatically rejecting the applicant if the applicant has an
applicant FICO score that is less than a rejection threshold.
11. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein determining whether to accept
the applicant based on the credit report data includes checking
attributes of the credit bureau report when the applicant has an
applicant FICO score that is greater than a rejection
threshold.
12. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 further including obtaining a
plurality of credit reports from a plurality of credit bureaus for
the applicant.
13. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 12 further including requiring the
applicant to independently pass tests based on data from at least
two different credit bureaus.
14. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 wherein parsing the applicant data
into fields suitable for directly obtaining a credit report from a
credit bureau for the applicant further includes classifying
portions of applicant data into classifications and displaying the
portions of applicant data along with the classifications for the
purpose of verifying the classifications.
15. A method of providing real time approval of credit over a
network as recited in claim 1 further including validating the
applicant data by verifying that the applicant data corresponds to
possible data values.
16. A method of providing real time direct access to stored data in
a database over a network in an on line credit system comprising:
receiving input data that identifies a user to the database;
classifying portions of the input data into classifications and
displaying the portions of applicant data along with the
classifications for the purpose of verifying the classifications;
receiving modifications to the classifications; and using the input
data and the classifications to obtain the stored data from the
database.
17. A method of providing direct access to data in an on line
database as recited in claim 15 wherein the database is a credit
bureau database.
18. A method of providing direct access to data in an on line
database as recited in claim 1 including: parsing an applicant
address to obtain address portions; assigning the address portions
to fields; and allowing the applicant to check and edit the
assigned address portions.
19. A system for providing real time approval of credit over a
network implemented on one or more computer processors comprising:
an application engine configured to obtain applicant data from an
applicant; an address parser configured to analyze the applicant
data into a form suitable for directly obtaining a credit report
from a credit bureau for the applicant; an underwriter configured
to obtain a credit report having credit report data from a credit
bureau for the applicant and to determine whether to accept the
applicant using the credit report data.
20. A computer program for providing real time approval of credit
over a network embodied on a carrier wave comprising: program code
operative to analyze the applicant data into a form suitable for
directly obtaining a credit report from a credit bureau for the
applicant; program code operative to obtain a credit report having
credit report data from a credit bureau for the applicant; program
code operative to determine whether to accept the applicant using
the credit report data; and program code operative to communicate
to the applicant whether the applicant has been approved.
21. A computer readable medium having program code embodied therein
for providing real time approval of credit over a network
comprising: program code operative to obtain applicant data from an
applicant; program code operative to analyze the applicant data
into a form suitable for directly obtaining a credit report from a
credit bureau for the applicant; program code operative to obtain a
credit report having credit report data from a credit bureau for
the applicant; program code operative to determine whether to
accept the applicant using the credit report data; and program code
operative to communicate to the applicant that the applicant has
been approved.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0001] 1. Field of the Invention
[0002] The present invention relates generally to electronic
commerce. More specifically, the invention relates to methods and
apparatuses for providing real time credit approval to an applicant
online by obtaining data from an applicant, verifying and
formatting the data so obtained in a manner that permits accessing
the applicant's credit report, and making an underwriting decision
to grant or deny credit to the applicant in real time based on data
from one or more credit bureau reports.
[0003] 2. Relationship to the Art
[0004] With the advent of electronic commerce on the Internet,
applicants have begun to expect decisions that have historically
required a period of days or weeks to be made instantly when
processed on line. Numerous transactions such as purchases of
consumer goods, airline tickets, and movie tickets have been
adapted for execution on line in a matter of seconds. What has not
been perfected is the ability to make a credit decision and grant
credit to a party on line in real time. (For the purpose of this
specification, "instant" or "real time" credit means within a short
period of time within less than about five minutes.) As a result,
virtually all Internet commerce to date requires some previously
secured method of payment such as a credit card obtained by
conventional means or other previously arranged payment source such
as a bank account or electronic money.
[0005] One factor that has prevented Internet applicants from
providing information and receiving instant approval for credit is
the difficulty of interfacing with the various credit bureau
databases (Equifax, Trans Union, and Experian). Personal
information must be entered by a party authorized by the credit
bureaus to communicate with the credit bureaus for the purpose of
accessing credit bureau reports. Such information must be in
exactly the correct form in order for an individual's credit report
to be retrieved. Another difficulty has been that the decision to
grant credit carries with it significant risk and systems have not
been successfully designed that can make a sufficiently reliable
underwriting decision using data provided directly by an
applicant.
[0006] Many credit card issuers provide applications on line that
may be filled out by applicants. However, data from those
applications must be entered manually into the credit card issuer's
system for processing before a credit report is obtained and an
underwriting decision can be made. Other applicants may be
preapproved by an existing card issuer's system before an offer is
made and accepted online. However, the underwriting process has not
been sufficiently automated to allow a credit decision to be made
in real time for an applicant who has entered personal data into an
application system.
[0007] What is needed is a system and method for obtaining personal
data from a credit applicant, parsing the data into a format that
is compatible with that used by the credit bureaus, obtaining
credit bureau information and making an underwriting decision in
real time. Such a system would be useful for conveniently obtaining
a credit card on line. Automation of a process for obtaining a
credit report and making an underwriting decision without human
intervention would be beneficial because credit approval decisions
could be made faster and more cheaply. The true power of such a
system would be realized when the system is accessed in the midst
of a transaction to obtain credit specifically for the purpose of
that transaction.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0008] The present invention provides a system and method for
obtaining information from an applicant, accessing credit bureau
information and making a real time underwriting decision to accept
or reject the applicant. A parsing engine parses the information
provided by the applicant so that it may be sent directly to a
credit bureau. Information obtained from one or more credit bureaus
is used by an underwriter engine to make a decision whether to
grant credit to the applicant.
[0009] It should be appreciated that the present invention can be
implemented in numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus,
a system, a device, a method, or a computer readable medium.
Several inventive embodiments of the present invention are
described below.
[0010] In one embodiment, a method of providing real time approval
of credit over a network is disclosed. The method includes
obtaining applicant data from an applicant. The applicant data is
analyzed into a form suitable for directly obtaining a credit
report from a credit bureau for the applicant. A credit report
having credit report data is obtained from a credit bureau for the
applicant. It is then determined whether to accept the applicant
using the credit report data and it is communicated to the
applicant that the applicant has been approved.
[0011] These and other features and advantages of the present
invention will be presented in more detail in the following
specification of the invention and the accompanying figures which
illustrate by way of example the principles of the invention.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0012] The present invention will be readily understood by the
following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying
drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural
elements, and in which:
[0013] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a preferred
architecture for a system that provides instant on-line credit card
approval.
[0014] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an application data
structure that is used in one embodiment to store the data
contained in an application and to keep track of the status of the
application as it progresses through the various modules described
in FIG. 1.
[0015] FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the general process flow
through the modules of FIG. 1.
[0016] FIG. 4A is a flow chart illustrating a validation process
that is used in step according to one embodiment of the
invention.
[0017] FIG. 4B is a flow chart illustrating a process for parsing
an address entered by an applicant.
[0018] FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating a pre-credit bureau test
performed in one embodiment of the invention.
[0019] FIG. 6A is a flow chart illustrating a process for making an
underwriting decision using multiple credit reports.
[0020] FIG. 6B is a flow chart illustrating a process implemented
on the Underwriter for using credit bureau data to accept or reject
an applicant in one embodiment.
[0021] FIG. 6C is a flow chart illustrating a process for using the
FICO score combined with other attributes to accept or reject an
applicant.
[0022] FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating a process for checking
the status of an application and executing either an offer process
or one of several rejection processes.
[0023] FIG. 8A is a flow chart illustrating a process for
determining an appropriate reason to display for rejecting an
applicant and displaying that reason.
[0024] FIG. 8B is a diagram illustrating one data structure used to
map main FICO factors provided by the credit bureau (referred to as
external codes) to internal decline codes as well as reasons for
rejection to be provided to rejected applicants.
[0025] FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating how a rejection reason
may be obtained.
[0026] FIG. 10A is a flowchart illustrating a process for providing
a set of multiple offers to an applicant and receiving a balance
transfer amount corresponding to an offer selected by the
applicant.
[0027] FIG. 10B is a flow chart illustrating one such method of
deriving a credit limit for an applicant based on the applicant's
FICO score and income, as well as the amount of total revolving
balance that the applicant elects to transfer.
[0028] FIG. 11 is another data representation illustrating another
embodiment of how the offers may be determined based on FICO score,
income range, income, and total revolving balance transfer.
[0029] FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating a display provided to the
applicant for the purpose of presenting multiple offers to the
applicant.
[0030] FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating a process for obtaining
a real-time balance transfer from an applicant.
[0031] FIG. 14 is a block diagram illustrating one computer network
scheme that may be used to implement the system described
herein.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0032] Reference will now be made in detail to the preferred
embodiment of the invention. An example of the preferred embodiment
is illustrated in the accompanying drawings. While the invention
will be described in conjunction with that preferred embodiment, it
will be understood that it is not intended to limit the invention
to one preferred embodiment. On the contrary, it is intended to
cover alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as may be
included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by
the appended claims. In the following description, numerous
specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough
understanding of the present invention. The present invention may
be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In
other instances, well known process operations have not been
described in detail in order not to unnecessarily obscure the
present invention.
[0033] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a preferred
architecture 102 for a system that provides instant on-line credit
card approval. As shown, an application engine 104 creates an
application by prompting an applicant for data and storing the
entered data. In one embodiment, the application engine creates an
application by communicating with the applicant over the World Wide
Web using Java, html or other commonly used Internet protocols. In
other embodiments, other types of connections may be established
between the applicant and the application engine. The application
includes applicant data such as the applicant's address and social
security number. Once created, the application is received by the
parsing engine 106 which parses an applicant's name and address and
creates appropriate software objects.
[0034] The parsing engine 106 parses the data into an exact format
that may be used to directly access credit bureau data. The
applicant is given an opportunity to view how the data submitted
has been parsed and to make corrections to parsed data, if
necessary. The parsing engine 106 is described in further detail in
FIG. 4B. The parsed data is passed to a Validator 108. Validator
108 validates certain data entered by the applicant such as the
social security number and zip code. Validation may include
checking either the form of a number to ensure that the correct
number of digits have been entered or checking content such as
checking that the area code portion of a phone number is a valid
area code or checking that a zip code matches a city. If the data
is determined to be valid, then the validated data is input to an
Underwriter 110. It is important to avoid sending invalid data to
the Underwriter to avoid the cost of requesting credit reports that
cannot be used.
[0035] Underwriter 110 receives data from the parsing engine and
evaluates the data to determine if the applicant should receive an
offer for credit. In one embodiment, the Underwriter sends the
parsed data to at least two credit bureaus, receives data from the
credit bureaus, and makes an underwriting decision based on an
analysis of the credit bureau data. The analysis may include, but
is not limited to, comparing the applicant's Fair Isaac Risk Score
(FICO score) to certain thresholds. Underwriter 110 is described in
further detail in FIGS. 6A and 6B. If the Underwriter determines
that an offer of credit should be extended to the applicant, then
an offer is made in real time to the applicant. As is described
below, the offer may include one or more sets of alternative terms
and those terms may be conditioned on the applicant taking certain
actions such as transferring balances. The applicant may be
required to actually take such actions in real time before an offer
conditioned on such actions is confirmed. If the Underwriter
determines that no offer of credit should be extended, then the
Underwriter determines a reason for rejecting the applicant.
[0036] Whether an offer is extended and accepted or not,
information about the offer or the rejection is passed to a
creditor module 112 that finalizes the offer and builds a data file
that is in the proper form to be sent to First Data Resources, Inc.
(FDR), or another such entity that provides a similar service to
FDR's service. During the finalization of the offer, FDR data is
built for all approved and declined applications. FDR handles the
embossing of the card and delivering it to approved applicants. FDR
also handles sending rejection letters to rejected applicants.
[0037] If, at any time during the process, a system error occurs
that interrupts the process, then an application object loader 114
loads the appropriate application for reentry into the system. It
should be noted that in one embodiment, the data that is processed
and stored by each module is stored as an application object as is
described further in FIG. 2. In other embodiments, the data is
stored in other ways, such as in a table or in a database.
[0038] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an application data
structure 202 that is used in one embodiment to store the data
contained in an application and to keep track of the status of the
application as it progresses through the various modules described
in FIG. 1. It should be noted that other data structures may be
used in other embodiments within the scope of this invention.
Application data structure 202 includes an application object 204
that is created by the application engine. Application object 204
points to a number of associated data structures, including an
applicant object 206. Applicant object 206 stores applicant data
and includes one or more data elements 208. For example, an
applicant data element 208 may include information such as the
applicant's address, phone number, or social security number. The
application data structure also includes one or more test result
objects 210. Each test result object 210 stores a validation status
212 associated with a validation test applied to the data
associated with applicant object 206. For example, a test result
object may include a social security number status indicating
whether the social security number entered by the applicant is a
valid social security number. Also, a test result object 210 may
include a zip code status indicating whether the zip code entered
by the applicant matches the rest of the address entered by the
applicant. Test result objects are used to check whether data
entered by the applicant is valid before certain actions are taken,
such as a credit report being ordered.
[0039] The application data structure further includes a set of
credit report objects 214 associated with each credit report
ordered. In one embodiment, the Underwriter requires at least two
credit reports from two of three credit bureaus before a decision
to grant credit is made. This rule effectively enables a real time
credit decision to be made without incurring an unacceptable amount
of risk. Since credit reports are preferably ordered from more than
one credit bureau, the application data structure will likely
include several credit report objects. Each credit report object
214 includes a plurality of attributes 216. An attribute is an item
of data provided by the credit bureau in the credit report. For
example, one such attribute is a 90 day attribute that indicates
the number of times that the applicant has been more than 90 days
late in payment of a debt. Similarly, a 60 day attribute may be
provided. Other attributes may include a FICO score, the number of
times the applicant has been severely delinquent, existence of a
derogatory public record, whether the applicant is now delinquent,
the applicant's total revolving balance, and the amount of time
that a credit report has been on file for the applicant (also
referred to as "thickness of file" or "time on file."
[0040] As is described below, in one embodiment, the Underwriter
bases its decision on the FICO score alone when the FICO score is
below a rejection threshold. In some embodiments, there may be
automatic approval when the FICO score is above an approval
threshold.
[0041] The application data structure further includes FDR data
object 218 associated with the application. FDR data is created by
the creditor module for the purpose of sending application
information to FDR so that FDR may send credit cards to successful
applicants and send rejections to unsuccessful applicants, when
that is required.
[0042] The application object also includes a status object 220.
The status of the application object is determined at various times
by the modules. For example, the Validator module may determine
that the application is invalid based on an invalid social security
number or zip code. The Underwriter module may also determine that
the application is a duplicate, as will be described below. The
Underwriter may also change the status of an application to
accepted or declined. In addition, certain applications may be
tagged with a fraud status flag indicating that there is a
likelihood of fraud. The application data structure also may
include a set of offers 222 to be provided to the applicant.
[0043] Thus far, the software architecture and data structure used
to make a real time credit decision in one embodiment have been
described. Next, the processes implemented in the modules will be
described.
[0044] FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the general process flow
through the modules of FIG. 1. The process starts at 300. In a step
304, applicant data is obtained via html, Java or other suitable
network protocol. It should be noted that in different embodiments,
the information entered by the applicant may be either parsed first
by the parsing engine or validated first by the Validator. For the
purpose of illustrating this point, FIG. 3 shows Validation
occurring first in a step 306. FIG. 1 alternatively shows the
parsing engine operating first. If the information is not valid,
then control is transferred from a step 308 to a step 309 and the
applicant is given an opportunity to edit the data. The Validator
then rechecks the edited data.
[0045] If the information is valid, then control is transferred to
a step 310 where the data entered is displayed along with the field
assigned to each part of the data by the parsing engine. This step
is important to ensure that the data will be readable when it is
sent to a credit bureau by the Underwriter. An exact match is
required by the credit bureaus for the correct credit report to be
sent. Various ambiguities in the way that an address may be
expressed can cause difficulties. Such difficulties have been a
significant factor in preventing other systems from allowing
individuals to directly access credit bureau data. For example, it
is necessary to distinguish a street direction that is part of a
street address from a street name that happens to be a direction,
such as "North."
[0046] To make certain that such distinctions as well as other
distinctions are made correctly, the parsing engine categorizes
each part of the entered address and presents the field names along
with that portion of the address that it has assigned to each field
name. So, for example, the applicant can move "North" from a street
direction field to a street name field if that is appropriate.
Thus, by parsing the address and assigning the different parts to
fields and then allowing the applicant to check and edit the
assignment, the parsing engine enables applicants with no knowledge
of the Byzantine structure required by the credit bureaus to enter
personal data in a manner that allows a credit report to be
obtained without human intervention.
[0047] Initial parsing is achieved by analyzing the form of the
address and dividing, for example, the street number, street name,
city and state. However, regardless of the care taken in designing
initial parsing, some miscategorization will likely occur.
Displaying the parsing to the applicant and allowing the applicant
to correct parsing errors enables the imperfect output of the
parsing engine to be corrected. At the same time, the process is
much more user friendly and less tedious for the user than if the
user had been asked to enter each field that the address is divided
into by the parsing engine separately. By having the parsing engine
parse the address and present the result of the parsing to the
user, tedium is minimized and accuracy is achieved.
[0048] If the applicant responds that the data and parsing is
correct instead of editing the parsing of the data into the
displayed fields in step 310, then a step 311 transfers control to
a step 312 where pre-credit bureau tests are run on the data. If
the applicant edits the data, then control is transferred back to
step 306 and the data is re-checked for validity. If the applicant
fails the pre-credit bureau test, then the applicant's status is
changed to rejected in a step 313 and if the applicant passes the
pre-credit bureau test, then the credit bureaus are accessed and
credit bureau tests based on the data obtained from the credit
bureau and other applicant data are performed in a step 314. If the
applicant passes the credit bureau tests, then post credit bureau
tests are run in a step 316. If the applicant passes the post
credit bureau tests, then the applicant is accepted to receive an
offer for credit and the approval process ends at 320.
[0049] If the applicant fails the credit bureau tests, then the
application status is changed to rejected in a step 315. As
described below, an on line rejection process is executed for
applications with a rejected status. Thus, the applicant
information is input to a series of tests and the result of the
tests determines whether the applicant is accepted or rejected.
[0050] FIG. 4A is a flow chart illustrating a validation process
that is used in step 306 according to one embodiment of the
invention. The Validator performs a plurality of validation tests
on the applicant data. The process starts at 400. In a step 402,
the applicant's address is validated according to an address
validation test. In one embodiment, address validation includes
checking that a street number and street name are entered and not a
PO box. Next, in a step 404, a validation status associated with
the address validation test is stored in a test result object. In a
step 406, the applicant's phone number is validated according to a
phone number validation test. The phone number validation test may
include checking the number versus one or more tables or checking
that an appropriate number of digits are provided. In a step 408, a
validation status associated with the phone number validation test
is stored in a test result object. Finally, in a step 410, the
applicant's social security number is validated according to a
social security number validation test. In a step 412, a validation
status associated with the social security number validation test
is stored in a test result object and the process ends at 420.
[0051] In this manner, the form of the data entered by the
applicant is checked to determine whether the data entered is at
least potentially correct. For example, if a social security number
that does not exist for anyone is entered, it can be determined
that the entered data must be invalid. In other embodiments,
additional validation tests may be performed. Specifically,
validation tests that help detect fraud may be implemented. In one
embodiment, the validation status associated with each test result
object includes a time stamp. Multiple applications with the same
or similar names may be tracked and a history may be saved. Fraud
tests may be implemented that track the number of applications
submitted by a given individual and check the consistency of
applicant data between multiple submitted applications.
[0052] FIG. 4B is a flow chart illustrating a process for parsing
an address entered by an applicant. The process starts at 450. In a
step 452, the address is split into fields using a parser. Next, In
a step 454, the parsing result is displayed. The applicant is
prompted to indicate whether or not the parsing result is correct
in a step 456. If the result is not correct, then control is
transferred to a step 458 and the applicant is allowed to change
the fields assigned to each part of the data. Once the parsing is
approved by the applicant, control is transferred to a step 460 and
the parsed data is sent to the Underwriter. It should be noted that
the data may also be sent through the validator again if the data
was changed by the user. The process ends at 462.
[0053] FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating a pre-credit bureau test
performed in step 312 in one embodiment of the invention.
Pre-credit bureau tests are performed prior to obtaining one or
more credit reports for the applicant for the purpose of avoiding
the expense of obtaining a credit report for certain applicants who
would not be approved regardless of the content of the credit
report. For an example, an applicant could be rejected based the
applicant being of a minor age. In one embodiment, the pre-credit
bureau test is performed by the Underwriter. In other embodiments,
the pre-credit bureau test may be performed by the parsing engine
or a separate module. The process starts at 500. In a step 502, the
applicant's income is obtained. Next, at step 504, it is determined
if the applicant's income exceeds an annual income criteria. If the
applicant does not meet the annual income criteria, the status of
the application may be set to declined in a step 506. By way of
example, if the income entered by the applicant is less than
$15,000, the status of the application may be set to declined. In a
step 508, the applicant's age is obtained. In a step 510, the
applicant is verified to meet a minimum age criteria. For example,
the minimum age may be 18. If the applicant fails to meet the
minimum age criteria, the application status may similarly be set
to declined in a step 512. It should be noted that the above
description recites that age and income are checked in separate
steps. Alternatively, they may be checked together.
[0054] If the applicant meets the minimum age and income
requirements, then control is transferred to a step 514. Step 514
checks whether the application entered is a duplicate application.
If the applicant has previously entered the information in the
application database, then the current application is a duplicate
application. It is important to recognize such duplicate
applications so that a single applicant cannot require multiple
credit reports to be obtained. In one embodiment, duplicate
applications are recognized by checking for duplicate social
security numbers, duplicate names and/or duplicate addresses. In
order to be rejected by the system, an application must match two
of the three criteria. A rule is established that an applicant may
reapply for a credit card after a specified time period has elapsed
(e.g., 60 days). Such a rule is implemented in a step 516 that
checks whether the application submission date exceeds a specified
time period since the submission date of the found duplicate
application. If the application is submitted prior to the specified
time period, the status of the application is changed to duplicate
in a step 518 and the process ends at 520.
[0055] When a duplicate application is submitted, then the
applicant is notified and a message is provided that informs the
applicants that duplicate applications may not be submitted within
a certain time period of each other. In addition, the applicant may
also be prompted to go to a re-entry screen that allows the found
duplicate application to be processed if processing of that
application was previously interrupted. In this manner, if an
applicant quit in the middle of the application process, then the
application process can be completed for the previously submitted
application.
[0056] It should be noted that a specific series of pre-credit
bureau tests have been shown for the purpose of illustration. Other
tests can be used within the scope of this invention. Also, it
should be noted that if one test is failed, then remaining tests
are skipped in some embodiments. Alternatively, all of the
pre-credit bureau tests may be performed and the pre-credit bureau
test results may be stored in separate question objects. This may
help detect potentially fraudulent applicants who create many
duplicates. If an application is determined potentially to be
fraudulent, the status of the application is changed to fraud.
Alternatively a separate flag may be set to indicate the potential
fraud.
[0057] Once it is determined the applicant has entered data that is
at least potentially valid and the applicant has approved the
output of the parsing engine, the application is ready to be
checked by the Underwriter to determine whether credit should be
approved for the applicant. The Underwriter makes such a
determination based on the information obtained from credit
bureaus. Since the decision made by the Underwriter is made without
human intervention, it is particularly important that the method of
determination made by the Underwriter is reliable. For this reason,
it is preferred that, in order for an applicant to be approved, at
least two credit bureaus must provide information about that
applicant that passes a series of tests. In some embodiments, this
rule may be relaxed, but a process that requires data from at least
two credit bureaus for approval has been shown to have superior
reliability to processes without such a requirement. In particular,
it has been determined that requiring data from at least two credit
bureaus for approval is an important factor in enabling the real
time credit approval system to make sufficiently reliable
determinations.
[0058] Because at least two credit reports from two different
credit bureaus are required, it is possible that certain applicants
may be rejected because they are only included in the records of a
single credit bureau. When this occurs, that reason for rejection
is given to the applicant instead of a reason based on the failure
of the applicant to pass a test based on credit bureau data.
[0059] FIG. 6A is a flow chart illustrating a process for making an
underwriting decision using multiple credit reports. The process
starts at 600. In a step 602, a first credit bureau test is
performed. The process of performing a test on individual credit
bureau data is further described in FIG. 6B. If that test is
failed, then the application is rejected in a step 604 and the
process ends at 606. Immediately rejecting the application after a
first failure saves the cost of obtaining a second credit bureau
report. If the first credit bureau test does not fail, either
because no report is obtained or because the test is passed, then
control is transferred to a step 608 and a second credit bureau
test is performed. If that test is failed, then the application is
rejected in step 604 and the process ends at 606. If the second
credit bureau test does not fail, then it is determined in a step
612 whether two credit bureau tests have been passed. If two tests
have been passed, then the application is accepted in a step 614
and an offer is determined as described below.
[0060] If two credit bureau tests have not been passed, then
control is transferred to a step 616 where it is determined whether
one credit bureau test has been passed. If one credit bureau test
has not been passed, then the application is rejected in a step 618
for not having a record in at least two credit bureaus. The third
credit bureau is not checked since it is not possible to get at
least two credit reports at that point. If one credit bureau test
has been passed, then a third credit bureau is consulted in a step
620. If the third credit bureau test is failed, then the
application is rejected in a step 622 and the process ends at 606.
If the third credit bureau report does not have a record for the
applicant, then the application is rejected in step 618 for not
having enough credit records and the process ends at 606. If the
third credit bureau test is passed, then the application is
accepted in a step 624 and the process ends at 606.
[0061] Thus, the Underwriter only accepts applications that pass at
least two credit bureau tests. It should be noted that a special
reason for rejection may be given to applicants who are rejected
because they do not have a record in at least two credit bureaus.
Also, it should be noted that in some embodiments, it is
distinguished whether a credit report is not obtained because a
credit bureau is temporarily unavailable or whether a credit report
is not obtained because there is no record for the applicant. In
the event that a credit bureau is unavailable, an applicant that
cannot be found in the remaining two credit bureaus may be given a
special rejection notice indicating that a later attempt should be
made by the applicant when the unavailable a credit bureau is
functioning. Also, when two credit bureaus are unavailable at the
same time, all applicants may be requested to reapply when the
credit bureaus return on line.
[0062] FIG. 6B is a flow chart illustrating a process implemented
on the Underwriter for using credit bureau data to accept or reject
an applicant in one embodiment. The process starts at 650. In a
step 652, a credit report is requested from the credit bureau. As
described above, the credit report can be requested using data
entered directly by the applicant because the parsing engine
classifies the data into appropriate fields to be sent to the
credit bureau. Once the report is received, the Underwriter
performs tests on the data in the credit report. Data entered by
the applicant may be used for Underwriter tests as well. In a step
656, a set of attribute tests are performed using the credit
report. Attribute tests are general tests that may be applied to
any credit report. Each attribute test corresponds to a general
attribute provided in the credit report. Attribute tests may
include threshold tests, which compare certain parameters such as a
FICO score to a threshold, or logical tests, which check for the
existence of certain adverse records. Next, in a step 658, a set of
credit report specific tests are performed using the credit report.
A set of credit report specific tests may be defined for each
credit bureau. Each credit report specific test corresponds to data
that is specific to a particular credit bureau.
[0063] The credit bureau tests may be separately performed to avoid
performing the remaining tests once the failure of the application
to pass a test results in a determination that the application will
be declined. However, each of the set of attribute tests and credit
report specific tests are preferably performed so that the best
basis for rejection may be identified and provided to the
applicant. Determining an appropriate basis of rejection to display
to the applicant is described further below in connection with FIG.
7. It is determined in a step 660 whether the applicant passed the
credit tests and the application is rejected in a step 662 if the
applicant failed the tests. If the applicant passes the tests, that
is noted in a step 664 for the purpose of determining whether the
applicant should be accepted as described in FIG. 6A. The process
then ends at 670.
[0064] As described above, the process of performing the various
tests may generally be considered as performing various attribute
tests and credit specific tests and combining the results of those
tests in some fashion to make a decision to pass or fail an
applicant.
[0065] FIG. 6C is a flow chart illustrating a process for using the
FICO score combined with other attributes to accept or reject an
applicant. The process starts at 680. In a step 682, the FICO score
is checked. If the FICO score is below a rejection threshold, then
the application is rejected in a step 684. If the FICO score is
above an acceptance threshold, then control is transferred to a
step 688 and other attributes are checked. If any attribute tests
are failed, then control is transferred to step 688 by a step 690
and the application is rejected. If all attribute tests are passed,
then control is transferred to a step 692 and the application is
accepted. The process ends at 694.
[0066] It should be noted that in other embodiments, other methods
of determining whether to accept or reject an applicant are used.
For example, in one embodiment, an applicant is accepted
automatically if he or she has a FICO score that is above a certain
threshold.
[0067] The attribute tests performed in step 688 may take on
various forms. In one embodiment, a list of attributes is checked
including attributes such as whether the applicant is severely
delinquent, currently delinquent, has a derogatory public record,
or has been delinquent a certain number of times in a past period.
A test may be defined for each attribute such as a maximum number
of times delinquent above which the test is failed. In one
embodiment, a list of tests is defined and all of the tests must be
passed. In another embodiment, a list of tests is defined and
certain subsets of the list are also defined. At least one subset
must be passed for the applicant to pass.
[0068] Once the decision is made to accept or reject an applicant,
the status of the applicant is set to be accepted or rejected.
Rejected applications are processed in a rejection process
described in FIG. 7. Accepted applications are processed in an
offer and confirmation process described in FIG. 10A.
[0069] FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating a process for checking
the status of an application and executing either an offer process
or one of several rejection processes. The process starts at 700.
In a step 702, the status of the application is checked based on
the processing performed by the Underwriter. As mentioned above,
the Underwriter determines whether the application is a duplicate
application, whether enough credit bureaus are available to provide
sufficient credit reports to evaluate the application, and whether
applications having sufficient credit reports should be accepted or
rejected.
[0070] If the status of the application determined by the
Underwriter is that the application is a duplicate of a previously
entered application, then control is transferred to a step 706 and
a message indicating that the application is a duplicate is
displayed to the applicant. Next, in a step 708, a link to a
reentry screen is provided to the applicant. The reentry screen
allows the applicant to execute a process that finds the earlier
application and allows the applicant to review or resume the
earlier application. For example, if the earlier application was
accepted but the applicant did not accept an offer, then the
process may resume at that point and the applicant may be given
another opportunity to accept. This is preferable to allowing the
application process to be repeated from the beginning since that
could needlessly cause a new credit report to be obtained. After
the reentry screen is displayed, the process ends at 720.
[0071] If the status of the application indicates that the
application has been accepted, then control is transferred to a
step 714 and an offer process is executed. The offer process is
described in further detail in FIG. 10. If the status of the
application is that a credit bureau error occurred, then control is
transferred to a step 710 and an error message is displayed
indicating that not enough credit bureaus are currently available
to allow the application to be processed. Also, in a step 712, a
link is provided to a site that allows the applicant to report the
error and request further information or request to be contacted.
After the offer process or the credit bureau error process is
executed, the process ends at 720.
[0072] If the status of the application indicates that the
application has been rejected, then control is transferred to a
step 704 and a rejection process is executed. The rejection process
is described in further detail in FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B. Once the
rejection process is executed, the process ends at 720.
[0073] FIG. 8A is a flow chart illustrating a process for
determining an appropriate reason to display for rejecting an
applicant and displaying that reason. The process starts at 800. In
a step 802, the main factors given by the credit bureau that affect
the FICO score are obtained. Generally, the main factors identified
by the credit bureau for the FICO score are provided in the form of
a numerical code that corresponds to a predetermined factor. In a
step 804, the credit bureau code is mapped to an internal code that
is determined from a data structure that maps bureau codes to
internal factors. In one embodiment, the data structure is a table
such as that illustrated in FIG. 8B.
[0074] Certain credit bureau codes that indicate positive factors
that would be inappropriate bases for rejection such as home
ownership are mapped by the data structure to a general rejection
reason such as "Applicant rejected based on FICO score" or
"Applicant rejected based on credit bureau data." Although such
general reasons may be provided to the applicant as a last resort,
it is preferred that a more specific reason be given. To that end,
a step 806 checks whether any of the FICO reasons have been mapped
to any specific rejection reasons. If all of the FICO reasons map
only to the general reason, then control is transferred to a step
808.
[0075] In step 808, the rejection process begins to attempt to find
a more appropriate reason for rejection of the applicant. First,
the results of the various attribute tests generated by the
Underwriter are obtained. In a step 810, it is checked whether any
of the attribute test results map to an appropriate rejection
reason. If an attribute test result maps to an appropriate reason,
then control is transferred to a step 812 and the attribute reason
is assigned as the reason given to the applicant upon rejection. If
the attribute test does not map to an appropriate reason, then
control is transferred to a step 816 and a general reason is
assigned as the reason given to the applicant upon rejection. If,
in step 806, it was determined that one or more of the FICO score
factors identified by the credit bureau correspond to an acceptable
rejection reason other than the general rejection reason, then that
reason is assigned as the reason to be given to the applicant in a
step 814. Whether or not a specific reason is identified by that
above mentioned steps, control is transferred to a step 818 where
the reason is displayed to the applicant and the process then ends
at 820.
[0076] FIG. 8B is a diagram illustrating one data structure used to
map main FICO factors provided by the credit bureau (referred to as
external codes) to internal decline codes as well as reasons for
rejection to be provided to rejected applicants. It should be noted
that although a table is shown, other data structures such as a
linked list are used in other embodiments. Each external code maps
to an internal code that corresponds to an internal reason for
rejecting the applicant. The actual reason is also stored for each
internal code. As described above, certain external codes
correspond to internal codes that provide only a general rejection
reason. Other external codes are mapped to internal codes that
allow a specific rejection reason to be given.
[0077] Once an appropriate rejection reason is selected, it is
necessary to display the reason to the applicant. In one
embodiment, the reason is displayed on a web page along with an
acknowledgement button that allows the applicant to acknowledge
that he or she has read the rejection message. FIG. 9 is a flow
chart illustrating how a rejection reason may be obtained. The
process starts at 900. In a step 902, the reason for rejection is
retrieved. Next, in a step 904, the rejection reason is displayed.
In addition, in a step 906, a link to a credit counseling site is
also displayed. The acknowledgement button is displayed in a step
908. When the applicant leaves the rejection page, a step 910
checks whether the acknowledgement button has been activated. If
the button has been activated, then control is transferred to a
step 912 where the application is marked as having had an
acknowledgement to a rejection. If the acknowledgement button has
not been activated, then control is transferred to a step 914 and
the application is marked as not having had an acknowledgement to a
rejection. The process ends at 916.
[0078] It should be noted that other methods of verifying that a
rejection has been received are used in other embodiments. For
example, in one embodiment, an applet is sent along with the
rejection that sends a message back to the credit approval system
when the rejection message page is completely downloaded by the
applicant. In this manner, the fact that a rejection was delivered
to the applicant can be verified without requiring any action by
the applicant.
[0079] Once the rejection has been sent and acknowledged or not,
the rejection or acknowledgement status may be provided to an
entity such as FDR for the purpose of generating hard copies of
rejection letters and either sending such hard copies as
confirmations to all rejected applicants or else, in some
embodiments, only sending hard copies of rejection letters to
applicants that have not acknowledged an on line rejection.
[0080] Accepted applications have an accepted status and they also
contain important applicant information supplied by the applicant
and obtained from the credit bureau reports that can be used to
design a custom account level offer for the applicant. Preferably,
multiple offers are presented to the applicant, allowing the
applicant to select an offer that includes terms that the applicant
desires to accept.
[0081] FIG. 10A is a flowchart illustrating a process for providing
a set of multiple offers to an applicant and receiving a balance
transfer amount corresponding to an offer selected by the
applicant. The process starts at 1000. In the step 1002, the
application object is retrieved. The application object includes
the information provided by the applicant as well as information
obtained from credit bureaus and analyzed by the Underwriter.
[0082] Next, in a step 1004, offer selection criteria are obtained
from the credit report object. In one embodiment, the offer
selection criteria include FICO score, income and a balance
transfer requirement. Offer selection criteria also may include
data entered by the applicant. The offer selection criteria also
may include other attributes such as time on file. In general, the
offer selection criteria are selected from information obtained
from the applicant and from the credit bureaus for the purpose of
estimating the applicant's risk of default to determine an
expectation of future loss as well as an expected future total
revolving balance (TRB). In this manner, an appropriate offer may
be determined. In one embodiment, the balance transfer requirement
is calculated as a selected percentage of the applicant's TRB. As
described below, different offer terms may be provided for
different balance transfer requirements. As noted above, in other
embodiments, other data structures than the application object are
used to store this information.
[0083] Next, in a step 1006, a set of offers is derived from the
credit report data and other applicant information stored in the
application object. In a step 1008, the set of offers is displayed.
In one embodiment, the offers are derived from the FICO score and
income of the applicant, which determine the risk of default, and
also from a balance transfer amount specified in the offer. The
balance transfer amount may be determined as a percentage of the
total revolving balance that the applicant has on all outstanding
credit cards in the credit report for the applicant. Both the
credit limit offered to the applicant and the interest rate offered
to the applicant may vary according to the amount of the total
revolving balance that the applicant chooses to transfer to the new
account.
[0084] In addition offers may present incentives such as frequent
flier miles, cash back on purchases, or favorable interest
rates.
[0085] In a step 1010, the system notes the selected offer and
balance transfer amount. Next, in a step 1012, the system obtains
the balance transfer amount from the applicant. Preferably, the
balance transfer is actually executed while the applicant is on
line. The process for obtaining and executing the balance transfer
in real time on line is described further in FIG. 13. Once the
balance transfer is executed, a data file is assembled for
transmission to FDR for the purpose of issuing a credit card in a
step 1014. The process ends at 1016. Thus, the system derives a set
of offers based on information from the applicant's credit reports
and displays the set of offers to the applicant. The applicant then
can select an offer based on the amount of balance transfer that
the applicant wishes to make. Once the applicant selects an offer
and a balance transfer amount, the system actually executes the
balance transfer by allowing the applicant to select the accounts
from which to transfer balances. Once the balance transfer is
executed, the data relating the application is assembled and sent
to FDR.
[0086] In different embodiments, the system uses different methods
of determining the terms of the offer extended to the applicant
based on the information derived from the credit report. FIG. 10B
is a flow chart illustrating one such method of deriving a credit
limit for an applicant based on the applicant's FICO score and
income, as well as the amount of total revolving balance that the
applicant elects to transfer. The process starts at 1020. In a step
1022, the system obtains applicant information and the credit
bureau information. This information may include the FICO score and
income of the applicant. Next, applicant information and the credit
bureau information are used to determine an expected unit loss rate
for the applicant In a step 1024. The unit loss rate corresponds to
the probability that the applicant will default on the credit line
extended. That probability multiplied by the credit limit extended
to the applicant determines the dollar loss rate for that
applicant. The dollar loss rate divided by the average total
outstanding balance of the account is the dollar charge off rate
for the applicant.
[0087] In one embodiment it is desired that a dollar charge off
rate be kept within a determined range for different applicants. To
accomplish this, it is desirable to extend smaller amounts of
credit to applicants with a higher probability of defaulting. It is
also useful to extend different amounts of credit based on a total
outstanding balance transferred by the applicant since the balance
transfer influences the likely future total outstanding balance of
the account. Conventional offer systems have been able to extend
offers to applicants with credit limits that are controlled by the
applicant's predicted average dollar loss. However, prior systems
have not been able to extend credit and determine a credit limit
based on a predicted total outstanding balance for the client
because they have failed to be able to present offers and condition
the acceptance of the offers in real-time on a balance transfer
made by the applicant.
[0088] Next, in a step 1026 the system determines one or more
balance transfer amounts based on the total revolving balance that
the applicant has in various other credit card accounts. In one
embodiment, the balance transfer amounts are calculated based on
different percentages of the total revolving balance determined
from all of the applicant's accounts found in the credit report.
Then, in a step 1028, the system calculates for each total balance
transfer amount choice that will be presented to the applicant, a
predicted estimated revolving balance for the future that the
applicant would be expected to maintain. The estimated total
revolving balance may be equal to the balance transfer amount or
may be a function of the balance transfer amount. In one
embodiment, the estimated total revolving balance does not depend
on the balance transfer amount. In one embodiment, four possible
percentages of the applicant's total revolving balance as
determined by the credit report are presented to the applicant.
Those choices are none of the balance, one-third of the balance,
two-thirds of the balance, and the full balance. Depending on which
of those amounts is selected by the applicant, the system
calculates a predicted total revolving balance for the future.
Then, in a step 1030, the credit limit for the applicant is set to
achieve a target dollar charge off rate based on the amount of the
total revolving balance that the applicant elects to transfer and
the risk of default. The process then ends at 1032.
[0089] The process described in FIG. 10B shows conceptually how a
credit limit could be determined based on an amount of balance
transfer and a FICO score and income. This process may be
implemented directly in some embodiments. However, in other
embodiments, it is preferred that a table be precalculated that
includes amounts of credit limit that the applicant will be given
based on certain amounts of balance transfer and FICO score. Using
such a table, the applicant's FICO score and balance transfer
amount may be looked up and then the credit limit may be found in
the corresponding cell. FIG. 10C is a table illustrating how this
is accomplished. Each row of the table corresponds to a different
FICO score, and each column of the table corresponds to a different
balance transfer amount. When the cell corresponding to the FICO
score and balance transfer amount is determined, the credit limit
obtained. A cut-off line 1040 is also shown which represents an
upper limit for a balance transfers for a given FICO score.
[0090] In the embodiment described above, separate tables are
prepared for applicants of different incomes. In addition, separate
tables may also be prepared for applicants having other different
characteristics such as time on file for the applicant. It should
be noted that the tabular representation of the data is presented
as an example only and the data may be represented in many ways
including in three-dimensional or four-dimensional arrays, linked
lists or other data representations optimized for a particular
system. By allowing the account credit limit to be a function of
FICO score, balance transfer, and income, a credit limit may be
selected for each individual account that enables the dollar charge
off rate for all applicants to be controlled.
[0091] FIG. 11 is another data representation illustrating another
embodiment of how the offers may be determined based on FICO score,
income range, income, and total revolving balance transfer. A
single table includes a range of FICO scores 1108, an income range
1110, a balance transfer column 1112, and four offer columns, 1114,
1116, 1118, and 1120. Each of the offer columns includes a link to
a web page that describes the offer in more detail. Once the proper
row of the table is found, multiple offers may be displayed to the
applicant by assembling the various links either in a single frame
or in consecutive frames for the applicant to view and select an
offer.
[0092] Another component of the offer granted to the applicant that
may be varied based on the balance transfer selected is a teaser
rate or annual rate. A teaser rate is an interest rate that is
temporarily extended to the applicant either on the amount
transferred or on the amount transferred and purchases made for a
certain period of time. The teaser rate is intended to incent the
applicant to transfer a greater balance to a new account. In one
embodiment, the teaser rate is determined based on the percentage
of the applicant's total revolving balance that the applicant
elects to transfer. Thus, the amount transferred by the applicant
controls not only the applicant's credit limit but also determines
a teaser rate extended to the applicant.
[0093] FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating a display provided to the
applicant for the purpose of presenting multiple offers to the
applicant. The display includes a first offer 1204, a second offer
1206, a third offer 1208, and a fourth offer 1210. For each offer,
there is a column 1214 corresponding to the initial teaser rate, a
column 1216 corresponding to the annual fee offer, a column 1218
corresponding to the credit limit, and a column 1220 corresponding
to the required balance transfer for that offer to be accepted. The
applicant selects one of the offers from the table. As noted above,
in one embodiment, the offers are provided as part of a web page
and the offers are presented using html. By selecting an offer, the
applicant selects a link that indicates to the system which offer
is selected. Once an offer is selected, the process of acquiring
the required balance transfer in real-time from the applicant is
executed. That process is described further in FIG. 13.
[0094] FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating a process for obtaining
a real-time balance transfer from an applicant. The process starts
at 1300. In a step 1302, the system retrieves the accounts and
balances that the applicant has based on the credit report data
obtained for the applicant. Next, in a step 1304, the estimated
balances for each of the accounts that were retrieved in step 1302
are presented to the applicant and the accounts are identified.
Identification of the accounts is a sensitive issue because the
specific account data for the applicant is confidential and if the
information is displayed to an unauthorized person, fraud could
result. Therefore, in one embodiment, a partial account number that
lists the account granting institution as well as part of the
account number for the account held by the applicant with that
institution is displayed. Generally, this information is sufficient
for the applicant to recognize the account, but is not enough
information to present a fraud risk.
[0095] It should be noted that in some embodiments, the accounts
chosen for display by the underwriter are selected in a manner to
facilitate a simpler balance transfer. For example, the largest
account balances may be displayed first so that amounts may be
efficiently transferred to meet the required transfer. Also, a
group of balances to transfer may be presented to the applicant by
highlighting certain accounts.
[0096] Next, the applicant is given an opportunity to indicate a
balance transfer by selecting one of the accounts and indicating
the amount to be transferred. It should be noted that the applicant
in this manner does not need to provide account information to
execute a balance transfer. If a transfer is indicated, control is
transferred to a step 1306 and the amount of the user balance
transfer is obtained. Next, in a step 1307, it is determined
whether the sum of the balance transfers is greater than or equal
to the required transfer amounts for the offer selected by the
applicant. If the amount is not greater than or equal to the
required-transferred amount, then control is transferred back to
step 1304 and the applicant is given an opportunity to select
further balances to transfer. If the amount of the balance
transfers is greater than or equal to a required transfer amount,
then control is transferred to a step 1308 and the system requests
final confirmation from the applicant of the balance transfers. If
it is determined in a step 1310 that a confirmation of the balance
transfer has been received, then control is transferred to a step
1312 and the balance transfers are executed. The process ends at
1314.
[0097] If in step 1304, it is determined that the applicant has
elected to exit the balance transfer screen instead of indicating a
balance transfer, or if it is determined in step 1310 that the
applicant elects not to confirm the balance transfer amounts
selected, then control is transferred to a step 1316 and the
applicant is returned to the offer selection screen so that the
applicant will have an opportunity to select another offer that
either does not require a balance transfer or requires less of a
balance transfer. The process then ends at 1314.
[0098] FIG. 14 is a block diagram illustrating one computer network
scheme that may be used to implement the system described herein.
An applicant host system 1402 is connected to the Internet 1404.
The applicant host system may be a PC, a network computer, or any
type of system that is able to transmit and receive information
over the Internet. Also, in other embodiments, a private network
such as a LAN or WAN or a dedicated network may be used by the
applicant to communicate. A web server 1406 is also connected to
the Internet and communicates with the applicant host system via
the Internet to request receive applicant information and to notify
the applicant of the results of the approval process. Web server
1406 in one embodiment accesses a business logic server 1408 that
implements the various approval checking processes described
herein. It should be noted that in some embodiments, the web server
and the business logic server are implemented on a single computer
system with one microprocessor. However, for the sake of
efficiency, the system implemented as shown is often used with
different servers dedicated to communicating with applicants and
processing applicant data, respectively. The business logic server,
wherever implemented, includes a communication line on which
communication may be had with credit bureaus or other outside data
sources. In some embodiments, an Internet connection may be used
for that purpose. Thus applicant data is obtained by the business
logic server either over the Internet either directly or through a
Web server. Also, data may be obtained by the business logic server
from an applicant using a direct dial in connection or some other
type of network connection.
[0099] A real time credit approval system has been described herein
primarily for the purpose of determining whether a credit card
should be issued to an applicant. Software written to implement the
system may be stored in some form of computer-readable medium, such
as memory or CD-ROM, or transmitted over a network via a carrier
wave in the form of Java.RTM. applets, other forms of applets or
servlets, and executed by a processor. The system may be
implemented on a PC or other general purpose computer known in the
computer art.
[0100] It should be recognized that the system described may also
be used for the purpose of granting credit to an applicant for the
purpose of making a single transaction. In such a system, a
transaction is interrupted and the application for credit is made.
Based on the real time approval decision made, credit may or may
not be granted for the purpose of completing the transaction.
[0101] Although the foregoing invention has been described in some
detail for purposes of clarity of understanding, it will be
apparent that certain changes and modifications may be practiced
within the scope of the appended claims. It should be noted that
there are many alternative ways of implementing both the process
and apparatus of the present invention. Accordingly, the present
embodiments are to be considered as illustrative and not
restrictive, and the invention is not to be limited to the details
given herein, but may be modified within the scope and equivalents
of the appended claims.
* * * * *