I moved around every month or two during college, because it allowed me to constantly lower my rent in a very expensive area, and saved thousands of dollars. I recently moved to Palo Alto for work, and got in a minor motorcycle accident that left my bike out of commission for several months.

Fully experiencing bay area traffic for the first time, I was pretty annoyed, so I went into 1. my national bank of multiple years, 2. a local credit union, and 3. The dealer itself to try to get a brief loan so I could get a nice sportbike. I make a decent salary, and have been working since I was 13.

Every single financial institution made me fill out my residence history for the past two years, which (on their paper forms) was a several hour process and a huge pain in the ass - why does it matter where I lived when I was eighteen? I'm not sure I remember the names of the people I was living with, much less the landlord's secondary phone number. It seemed especially pointless with my main bank, because they had full historical data on my salary, and knew damn well that I could pay off the loan in full with a month's salary.

Long story short, all of these places denied me for not having lived in the same house for multiple years. I waited a week, got a bonus, and bought one from a different dealer in cash. The next time I need a loan, you can bet I won't be going to any of the companies I visited previously.

It's ridiculous to make financial judgments based on length of residence at an address in 2013 when there's so much more accurate data available (actual income/purchasing data). I think this is a policy that's going to change - many if not most of my highest-earning peers move around frequently to meet needs of the modern job market.