Do Firefox Users Pay More For Car Loans? 371
RandyOo writes "Someone wrote in to The Consumerist to report an interesting discovery: while shopping online for a car loan, Capital One offered him different rates, depending on the browser he used! Firefox yielded the highest rate at 3.5%, Opera took second place with 3.1%, Safari was only 2.7%, and finally, Google's Chrome browser afforded him the best rate of all: 2.3%!
A commenter on the article claims to have been previously employed by Capital One, and writes: If you model the risk and revenue of applicants, the type of browser shows up as a significant variable. Browsers do predict an account's performance to some degree, and it will affect the rates you will view. It isn't a marketing test. I was still a bit dubious, but at least one of her previous comments backs up her claims to have worked for a credit card company.
Considering the outcry after it was discovered that Amazon was experimenting with variable pricing a few years back, it seems surprising that consumers would be punished (or rewarded), based solely on the browser they happen to be using at the time!"
I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously it would be high as the user would be a risk taker!
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it would be high as the user would be a risk taker!
Or because using IE indicates that you don't really shop around.
Konqueror and Epiphany browsers (Score:5, Informative)
Opera 10.63 = 3.50% new cars, 5.09% used
Konqueror 4.4.2 = 3.50% new cars, 5.09% used
Firefox 3.6.12 = 3.10% new cars, 4.49% used
Chromium 9.0.568 = 2.70% new cars, 4.09% used
Epiphany browser 2.30.2 = 2.70% new cars, 4.09% used
Hitting refresh did not change the rates offered, even if all cookies were deleted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note: I am not saying these are my personal beliefs on the matter, just the possible reasoning in play.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
A curious aspect of this is that by adding my mother to my car insurance, my premium went down, even though my usage of the car isn't going to change and the risk remains the same, because statistically men who have a woman on their insurance are less likely to have an accident.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Even if you're the most financially prudent giant on Earth, if they're dealing with thousands of people they'll gain overall by betting the way the correlation lies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like any other risk assessment on the planet. When they have access to a monstrous amount of data, even the most obscure, apparently completely unrelated facts can cause a change in their statistics. They don't have to justify them. They don't even have to claim to have any understanding of them, they just look at the numbers which do not lie, and trust them and set their rates accordingly.
I'd be surprised if they weren't doing this, it'd be bad business. And in a business where you're handing
Which is why this is likely marketing or an error (Score:3, Insightful)
And not actual rate differences. Remember that nothing they list there is anything but marketing. Your rate isn't your rate until you actually apply. A number on a website is just promotion/information. It isn't a binding offer of any kind. They'd need a credit check at the very least before they'd be willing to make an actual offer.
Now, as you said, the one and only concern with loans is established risk. What factors (that they are legally allowed to consider) increase or decrease risk? All they are inter
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
What the interest rate for IE was?
I just tried this with the three browsers I currently have installed. Firefox and Chrome both offered me 3.50%, while IE8 offered me 2.30%. Firefox also used a completely different style sheet than both IE8 and Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Such as the location that they are able to resolve via your IP address? I bet that has a huge effect on the rates they provide.
Actually, they ask for a ZIP code, which they use to determine rates. I entered 90210 in all three browsers, because I actually live in Canada and am not eligible for any rate at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be slightly surprised if the actual rate *you* would be offered for an actual loan changed. It's too easy to use another browser.
I wouldn't be. I applied for a mortgage once at the bank i usually deal with, thought i could do better, and hired a mortgage broker to find me a good deal... ended up going with my original bank, through the broker, at a better rate. Apparently, I'm a better risk for having for having used a broker.
Re: (Score:2)
"No deal," maybe. :P
Damn (Score:2)
Now I wish I'd set up my car insurance on my own machine rather than while at my mum's house.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just Google for it, clearly Google search robots must get the best rates so that more people will follow the links.
Its the USERAGENT string (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a comment from the article. I have not tested this.
bearymore::: ""Wow! I have a Firefox addon which spoofs the user agent. When I go to Capitalone with the default Firefox as the user agent I get 3.50%. When set the addon to tell Capitalone I'm using Internet Explorer, I get 2.70%. When I switch back to Firefox, I get 3.50% again. Keep in mind, I'm using the same browser and simply opening the site in different tabs""
So either deliberate or incredibly bad coding for a financial site.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This opens up a very interesting can of worms. I wonder how many other companies selling products that vary on a per-customer basis are using this information? Car insurance is another one that springs to mind, particularly if you live in a part of the world where it's compulsory.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well years ago I used to have progressive. I left them when I moved to People's Republik of Taxachusetts. I drove a ZR-1 which was considered a "Symbol 26" (highest risk) car and paid about $1400/yr for full coverage with a low deductible. (The car is no longer registered - not registering it again until I get the body fully restored and the LT-5 pulled and repainted. GM paint sucks ass!)
I've since driven trucks daily (cheap to insure) and now a Saab is my daily driver. Despite it being ranked as the safe
Re: (Score:2)
So either deliberate or incredibly bad coding for a financial site.
Or incredibly deliberate bad coding.
Re:Its the USERAGENT string (Score:4, Funny)
So either deliberate or incredibly bad coding for a financial site.
Or incredibly deliberate bad coding.
That sentence stub made my brain incredibly deliberately fall out of my ears.
Re: (Score:2)
- Hanlon, Heinlein, whoever...
JavaScript (Score:5, Interesting)
Just turn JavaScript off and you'll get the higher 3.50% every time ...
Seems like something's up with their variables; A different cg variable causes a different rate for the same zip code.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So what’s the Javascript you type in the address bar to have it give you 1%?
And of course what nobody has looked at (Score:3, Insightful)
Is what rates do you actually get? Just because they print a rate on their site doesn't mean you may not get a higher or lower rate when you actually get approved for the product, after they've looked at things that actually matter.
I have trouble believing a random poster that claims to have worked there that this actually influences things. Really? Then where is the actuary data on this, and why isn't it something asked on home loans? Anything that has a significant predictive value int terms of loan perfo
This calls for a ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AdBlock? (Score:2)
Do Firefox Users Pay More For Car Loans? (Score:2, Funny)
Retaliation for Ad-Block!
And it is 20% if you use Lynx. (Score:2)
I mean if you use Lynx you must be a bearded freak living in your parents basement.
"Dear literal net, yes I know it will now work with Lynx"
One data point for each browser (Score:2)
From the text of the email, it seems that the user launched the site once in each browser. The quote was probably changing each time the page loaded (according to some actuarial variable, intentional randomness to see how people reacted to different prices, or a bug in the software making the quote) completely independently of the browser choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like (Score:2)
HTTP_USER_AGENT also passes operating system info (Score:5, Funny)
they could use that information to find people using apple products. and charge such people 9.5%. as long as the car was titanium white, such people would happily purchase at that rate
Re: (Score:2)
And if the information returned Internet Explorer, could they offer a lower rate, believing that the car being purchased will be in the shop more often?
maybe it's just a standards compliance issue (Score:5, Funny)
If true, it is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Room for negotiation (Score:2)
Don't pay more if you don't have to.
Capital One is famous for this (Score:5, Informative)
That's how it works (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire insurance industry is based on the principle of retaliation against customers who cost the company money and rewards for those who dutifully pay more than they claim. Any statistical basis they can use to figure out which customer is which ahead of time... they'll use. The only ones they (usually) won't use are those prohibited by law; instead they look for some other factor that correlates strongly, and use that instead. So if they aren't allowed to use race, they'll use neighborhood... if they aren't allowed to use neighborhood, they'll look for something else. Maybe ISP, or IP address block, or OS, or.... browser. They don't care, as long as there's a good correlation. It's not that they hate Firefox users, any more than they hate people of a particular race or ethnic group or neighborhood or religion or credit score or driving record... they just don't care. Like any "good capitalist" they want to maximize profit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course they care. That's the whole point. They care that some people are going to cost them more than others, and they adjust for that. The subtext of your comment seems to be that everyone should pay the higher price because a few people are statistically going to be more expensive to service. You might (might) reasonably expect that of a government-provided service, but of a private company that's looking to make money from loaning money? Let 'em live or die by how their market r
From an (ex) Capital One employee (Score:4, Interesting)
I just spoke to my wife, who spent 10 years working for Capital One at their corporate headquarters in Richmond (*). When I mentioned the gist of the story to her, her response was "I believe it", which actually floored me as I am always telling her about various conspiracy stories I see online. She immediately offered up that they use various bits of financial information to determine what % interest rate you would be charged and suggested that the Safari users would be seen as having more money (as Mac owners) and hence a lower risk.
(*) As an aside, if you haven't been to the Capital One campus in Richmond [google.com] then you are missing out. The selection of restaurants is amazing. They have outdoor basketball and volleyball courts. And they even have a frickin' treehouse where you can go and sit outside with your laptop and do your work via Wi-Fi. The downside is that corporate doesn't instill loyalty as pretty well everyone in Richmond either knows someone who was downsized from Capital One, or is downsized themselves.
The only better work conditions nearby would be CarMax, which for their staff they don't offer fixed length vacations. You get to choose how long you take off each year - they assume that if you are professional enough to do your job that you are professional enough to know when your job is done!
Firefox is often used by the risk-averse (Score:2)
My personal opinion (Score:5, Funny)
After reading about this, I am completely {outraged}{amused}{indifferent}{turned on} by this practice.
Javascript error. Aborting script.
This is true (Score:3, Interesting)
This is indeed true. I've experienced it this past September. However, I think it is not just based on browser, but also based on geographic location. I checked their site from my home PC with Firefox (east coast state), and to be a bit safer, I VPNed in to my office with my work laptop, still using Firefox, to actually fill out the application. To my surprise, the rate was higher (the exit node to the Internet is a north, central US state for the corporation). I called my wife in to the room to show here two computers, both on Capital One's auto loan home page, showing her the two different "as low as" rates on the page. I'm glad I didn't go with them for the auto load - seedy bastards.
Same thing with Verisign / SSL purchases?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently noticed the same type of happening when I was shopping for a Verisign SSL cert (clients *sighs* don't get me started on why). When I use Safari or Firefox, the price for a 1-year "Secure Site" SSL cert (with site seal) is $499 - however, when I switch to Chrome or IE8, I get a price of $399. I only had to buy the one, and so wrote it off as a fluke - but I just re-verified that this is still happening for me (tested on both Mac and Windows), given the news on this article.
This smacks me as being seriously wrong - now I have to test all browsers when buying something online, to be sure I'm getting the right price? And no, I'm not going to change my default browser habits, just to get lower pricing...
Any others? (Score:2)
This has zero effect on your actual rate. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the advertised rate, which is always based on parlor tricks and weird math. Your actual rate is calculated after your application and credit check are reviewed, and neither of those things care what browser you use.
This makes sense if you think about it. The bank wants to advertise a rate that is appropriate to you, but it doesn't know much about you until you apply. So it has to guess based on the very limited information it does have. Otherwise -- and this still happens all the time -- you see an ad that says 'Low low 2% APR!' and then you apply and find out that you qualify for 6% APR and get pissed off. If looking at your USER_AGENT reduces the spread between what they promise and what they get, it makes sense for them to do it. But don't let that get in the way of your populist rage.
Actuaries come up with weird shit (Score:3, Informative)
I worked briefly in car insurance, and one of the many questions asked by one of the top insurer was how long the client usually kept his car. (Note that this was an information asked from brokers about their customers, not direct b2c)
Turns out people who renew their car often take better care of them so as to maximise resale value, and consequently produce less claims. It wasn't a big difference but it was apparently statistically significant.
Firefox Plugin Opportunity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a good opportunity for a firefox plugin.
What's in YOUR browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's saying it is? Correlation is really all insurance rates need to be based on.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Insightful)
The phrase "correlation is not causation" is strongly correlated with stupidity.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Funny)
The phrase "correlation is not causation" is strongly correlated with stupidity.
Yes, but correlation is not ... oh, wait ...
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when used in idiotic contexts like the first post.
In this case, they are looking for patterns, and the actual cause is irrelevant, if they notice patterns that indicate higher risk, regardless of the root cause, they follow them.
Now, there are correlations (violent video game players have a higher incidence of violent activity) that, by themselves, do not imply causation (further tests are needed for causation). When someone tries to use these as an implication of causation, then the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is quite intelligent.
And, I just implicitly defended Capital One. I feel morally dirty now. Thanks a lot.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I'd feel dirty if I defended Capital One, too.
They're local here and known by many people as Crapital One for their firing sprees and tendency to make employees disappear. They're also the fastest bank in the nation to sue their own customers. (I sell data to bankruptcy lawyers who keep up with this kind of thing.) They're the last bank I'd go to for a credit card or a loan anyway.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, I'd feel dirty if I defended Capital One, too.
They're local here and known by many people as Crapital One for their firing sprees and tendency to make employees disappear. They're also the fastest bank in the nation to sue their own customers. (I sell data to bankruptcy lawyers who keep up with this kind of thing.) They're the last bank I'd go to for a credit card or a loan anyway.
Yeah, but you have to balance that against the fact that they have funny vikings in their ads. That counts for a lot when you're choosing a credit card, you know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On Slashdot, it's stupid and irrelevant more often than not. People just post it because they have read it before and seen it get +5, insightful. You see it posted every single time there's a story about some indicator of something or other. So the correlation is certainly there.
I think there might be a weak causal relationship as well, since so many slashbots seem to just break down and stop thinking when they come across indicators and other correlations, believing the right answer is to mindlessly harp o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Informative)
Why should the interest rate depend on a credit check..?
Are you being serious? Have you never secured credit before in your life? ANY lending institution is going to require a credit check prior to lending you any money. You'll notice those advertisements usually have fine print somewhere which indicate "rates as low as" regarding the rate(s) quoted. Your credit score always comes into play, whether or not you realize it. If it didn't, banks would have to offer the same rate to a guy who defaults on all his loans that they offer to a guy who's paid everything on time for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should the interest rate depend on a credit check..? If I was advertised a certain rate on the website and then they turned around and said "actually, the real interest rate is 5%", I'd tell them where to go.
And they'd tell you where to go.
And you'd have to walk, because you didn't get the car loan.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It doesn't matter in this case; all you need is correlation.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Informative)
Repeat after me "People who blindly yell 'Correlation is not causation' should be slapped with a trout.'
FTA: "I figured it had just gone up since I received the email. I tried to use their little payment calculator but the flash based widget wouldn't work properly in the Firefox Beta so I loaded up Safari to try and funny enough the rate offered was 2.7%. I checked in Chrome and Opera to see if it was maybe just something wrong with the Firefox beta and Chrome's rate was 2.3% while Opera's was 3.1%."
and "Devin installed fresh versions of the browsers in order to make sure the changes didn't result from different cookie settings. It seems those looking for a Capital One loan should apply through Chrome."
There are no other obvious variables. The only crime you can punish this guy for is not repeating the experiment across other computers. You can try it for yourself to see if it holds true for you as well.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
People who blindly yell 'Correlation is not causation' should be slapped with a trout.'
Yeah, but where would we get a trout? For me, fishing is NOT correlated with obtaining a trout, it's correlated with getting angry or drunk.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Funny)
Repeat after me
after me
after me
after me
after me
after me
after me
after me
after me
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Funny)
Correlation may not imply causation, but it certainly does waggle its eyebrows meaningfully in causations direction.
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Correlation is not equal to causation" is what an unintelligent person says when they wish to sound intelligent. it's something they once heard they thought was clever, and they think that by aping this simpleminded thought they are adding something to the conversation, when they are just generating useless noise
an intelligent person would actually be looking at the merits or lack thereof of the correlation, and talking about if causation is implied or not
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Or in the case of fields like marketing and insurance, causation is irrelevant if the correlation is strong enough.
If teenagers have a 1% chance of getting into an accident in their first year being insured with the company, but ones with red cars have a 3% rate, you don't have to prove any causal relationship between car color and ability to drive, you just play the numbers and raise rates accordingly. Business decisions don't have to be rational, they just need to be right 51% of the time to stay in business.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Insightful)
Blindly stating 'Correlation is not equal to causation' is not evidence against causation.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Funny)
Opera users aren't good people to lend to either, since none of them have any income. They spend all of their time scanning the Internet for stories about browsers (any browser) so they can jump in and extol the virtues of Opera. This leaves no time to hold down a real job.
Safari users are good people to lend to because, since they're using an Apple product, you already know they're accustomed to paying huge premiums for slightly shinier versions of various consumer goods. All you have to do is send the bill in an elegantly designed box and they'll pay it without question every month.
Chrome users are the best because their close relationship with Google shows they've already given up on the whole concept of privacy and will gladly supply you with any information you ask for. Plus, all you have to do is tell them you're not evil and not only will they allow you to do whatever you want no matter how evil it is, they'll actually defend your actions to others!
Clearly browser choice is and should be a significant factor in the lending business.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Or it could be that firefox users tend to work in the tech field, a field with notoriously short and unreliable job durations. It could be that firefox users are rated lower due to more frequent (if short) bouts of unemployment.
Re:Repeat after me (Score:4, Funny)
Netscape users are not good because they are likely so old, that they are libel to die soon anyway causing you to pay out...
Gopher users are not good because they are dead, and the dead don't pay premiums.
Mosaic users...
Re:Repeat after me (Score:5, Funny)
It is sometimes. For example, they should be charging the Safari users more, as those Mac fanboys will pay anything if it's marketed right.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Correlation is so highly correlated to causation that we're forced to conclude that correlations cause causation." [amultiverse.com]
Still cracks me up. Probably caused by^W^W^WHighly correlated with reading hundreds of threads like this on Slashdot...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but where there is correlation you have to look for causation. Occam's razor -- Can you come up with a better explanation as to why one would get different rates using different browsers? If not, then you have to suspect causation. If so, then you have to find another cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a general principle, no, you don't. As a rule of thumb, you are probably safer assuming that a correlation between two variables is the result of a common cause. E.g., in humans, height over 6'5 is strongly correlated with usage of urinals. At no point should you bother to rule out causation (in either direction) in this case.
A more practical example is the media's constant repetition that healthier people have more sex. Of course,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What rate did they offer for IE6?
Surely that must be good indicator for negligent behaviour?
Actually, since the bulk of people still on IE6 are locked-in due to corporate policy, you could just as easily assume they'd be shown the lowest rate, as they're likely to have a stable, corporate job.
Re:IE6 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IE6 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IE6 (Score:5, Interesting)
Next thing you will get a visit from the fraud squad.
Same as the guy which used Lynx to donate to a charity campaign in the UK a few years back.
The "security pros" providing security solutions t the donation site decided that it is being hacked (well, he did play a bit with various URLs to get past some particularly stupid javascript based submit code).
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Funny)
I work at IHOP you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, they don't have to go on what "seems logical". They have actual data. Science at work! Of course, being aware of the measurement in this case will change it for many users. (Quantum analogies at work!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, if this were an indicator, it would seem logical that Internet Explorer users would trend lower incomes than anyone else.
Not necessarily. Obviously no one is foolish enough to think that there is a causal relationship between browser usage and creditworthiness, so one must wonder what variables are likely to co-vary and generate this apparent correlation (if real). It may be as simple as "People who use alternative browsers are, on average, significantly younger than people who use IE." While your guesstimate about income may be true among individuals of the same age ( I'm not going to guarantee that it's accurate -- ther
Re:Oh, come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for all of the moms, aunts, friends, etc. of those educated people who have a "magic box" that said educated person set up for them. It runs this thing called "the Internets". And I know *MY* mom/aunt/friends/etc. aren't flush with cash. That's generally the reason they are running on cobbled together Linux boxes in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
it would seem logical that Internet Explorer users would trend lower incomes than anyone else. Anyone educated enough to even be using an alternate browser on a PC is probably educated enough to be making more money than your run-of-the-mill user.
these opinions are those of a Firefox user who likely makes considerably more than the average schlub who's surfing the internet for porn between his shifts at Denney's.
While the geek surfs for porn from his cubicle at work?
It would seem more reasonable to
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously you fail to understand how my superior browser makes me a better human being than you. As such, I will disregard the rest of your post. It is likely just to bore me, or possibly even lead to a headache. When you realize the error of your ways, and are willing to admit that I am right in this and all things, I will once again indulge you.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Funny)
The sad thing is that you have to use your choice of browser to define yourself and make yourself feel superior to others. I don't need to resort to such immature behavior to validate my self worth. I'm a Mac owner.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Interesting)
I would guess that IE trends higher is the less tech savvy regardless of income or education. It's those with tech knowledge that deviate from it (not in all cases, but the majority).
STATISTICS! (Score:4, Informative)
Insurance is a game of statistics. Yes, some browsers lie in their user agent string. Yes, sometimes people use other people's browsers. But MOST browsers are what they say they are, MOST people use their own machine pretty regularly, and if the insurance company is really doing this (which I take no position on), then you can bet they have statistics to back up their belief that there's a difference in insurance risk, ON AVERAGE, between users of different browsers.
The insurance company couldn't care less if the correlation holds true for every single instance. They know that it doesn't, in fact. But if it holds true often enough, then they can use that data to offer some people a better price on the insurance, because they're statistically less likely to file a claim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Very easy. You sign up to buy their insurance on-line. They grab your useragent string when you make the purchase, and they stick that in their database of information about you, nice and associated with your customer number.
Then they run a query on claims made. They filter the result to show only claims made by people who bought insurance on-line. Then they average the claims amount by browser type.
Or, they do a random query to pick 10,000 people who bought their insurance on-line last year. Then they coun
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Statistics motherfucker, do you understand them?
Re: (Score:2)
"So what, IE users are not allowed to buy cars?"
Intelligent drivers are lower insurance risks. :)