I hope you're right, I'm trying to get my daddy to add me as an authorized user on one of those ridiculous AMEX cards that have no limit. The Chase Visa and the Discover he put me on gave enough of a bump to my credit that I've been able to get a BP/Chase, a Hooters MC and a Barnes & Noble MC since last week. I know, seems crazy, but one of the biggest issues I have on all of my reports is not enough positive tradelines. I only have a sub-prime card and two student loans that are showing good.
As I read these posts and others on FICO, credit reporting issues, and issues relating to how we are monitored and scored..I rreally enjoy watching the Pro,s in here do battle of the wits...So much information comes out... However in much simpler terms I always wonder who is the "master" and who is the "servant" in these issues. No matter how you slice these very important issues we are still going to pay interest to the master. HOW they arrive at the factors to charge us ...... is still the only question..
Butch's "shall v. may" thread may help.... Slinkyboi... Butch posted a very long discourse here at CN about "shall" vs. "may" as used in statute law and legislation a few years back: http://consumers.creditnet.com/Discussions/credit-talk/t-the-new-75-yr-reporting-period-49575.html It appears that some people have not read it yet.
Lies...darned lies... and someone isn't listening... No it isn't. I.) In fact, we could well argue that the AUs' credit histories are inaccurate because the AU was not legally responsible for anything and therefore cannot demonstrate that they did a thing to produce that credit history. Why? The presumption is that the account holder(s)--the one(s) who signed that credit contract to begin with--owned the account and paid the bill as agreed; the AU is equivalent to a person who has signature authority on a bank account but don't actually OWN it and have no legal right of ownership. II.) That argument about the AU being discriminated against? Bogus: 1.) The non-consideration of the AU accounts applies to anyone, so there is no discrimination per the ECOA. 2.) The AU--at least for consumer accounts--no longer has a purpose. There are other ways that those who were/are AUs can get their name attached to the credit record, such as joint accounts; 3.) The FCRA does not specify how the other person must get "credit" for the record associated with a particular tradeline for which another user is the primary account holder. Or, whether they should at all. In short, all the ECOA calls for is equal OPPORTUNITY for anyone to have the opportunity to get credit. The law does not give people an equal opportunity to "piggyback" on someone else's good credit in lieu of cleaning up (or establishing for the first time) their own credit history. Need the law? See here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+15USC1691 (The index page for the ECOA in the US Code (online): http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title15/chapter41_subchapteriv_.html )
If there is no "right" and there is no "prohibition", what does that say? It says, really, that the right may be claimed but not necessarily granted; the claimants and the responders are free to act as they see fit within the law. Quite true. However, appeasing its master is well within the permitted scope of business practice as long as F-I considers what it must and implements it in a non-discriminatory fashion. To argue otherwise would be to restrict F-I from ever correcting errors which they or industry find in F-I's model. I am sure that that is not your argument here.
Fair Issac will change its algorithm to generate a credit score that its master demands. Should Fair Issac be sued, it will crawl back in bed with its master seeking funds to ward off the masses.
This is an interesting debate you guys are having, but for the layman what does this mean in the long run? It looks to me that it may benefit people who are on the cusp of credit repair. If you have 3 different types of accounts, it makes applying for multiple credits less harmful, etc. But then the other side I guess is we know the other system and itâ??s caveats, which I would have to imagine is a benefit when dealing with FICO and the secret society of Credit Bureaus. I wonâ??t really be comfortable with this thing until I see the fine print and see it executed. Itâ??s ironic they picked now to do this and they sell it as some kind of benefit to the consumer, this is with out a doubt in my opinion being driven by the banks who have taken a pounding under the old system in the last year. It punishes people a little less for mistakes and a little mystery canâ??t hurt the people who have become proâ??s at scamming the system.
I think that this was the thrust of my original comment; different spin, but the same principle. The algorithm will reflect what the industry feels is correct. F-I's strategy for avoiding scrutiny has been successful so far. I would certainly not expect to see a change in that, leaving plaintiffs going against them struggling to make a connection sufficient to transfer legal liability.
Since the FICO algorithm is proprietary, we'll only see the effects of the changes not the underlying mechanics of it. We'll be piecing together a reasonable picture from what we see and whatever facts are leaked. I would not expect us to see dramatic changes or even significant changes, since the basic algorithm does not appear to be flawed. This will not be a brand new algorithm, but one that has evolved. What will be seen is the here-and-there tweak to address perceived problems. I see the hits for credit shopping being adjusted and the softening of the impact of the occasional late as being better for the consumer. We won't understand the changes to the AU factors until they decide on the "how", but I expect it would heavily penalize what they see as unacceptable practice. The purchase of seasoned trade lines would fall in this category. Serial credit abusers will likely take the greatest hit and may find it more difficult to recover in the short term.
None of what you said is remotely applicable to what anyone is talking about herein. We're not talking about legislative intent rather, the langauge. Under that langauge of the ECOA, anyone can see issues with FI's stated model.
Oracle, what are you talking about? I'm not trying to attack you but, you're really making more of this than is warranted. I mean . . . c'mon. We all know that FI has stated they're going to disregard all AU accounts. Now, we all know that I personally don't see this ever occuring but, if it should, I don't think it will last. That aside, it doesn't matter "how" they would do this. The rub is that they would. It is the act that is important, not the underlying cause. More importantly, it is going to go beyond us mere scoundrels who offer this terrible, yet legal service. It is going to EFFECT EVERYONE who has AU accounts. I don't see what argument there is here insofar as FI has already stated as such. They just won't score them. Period. And it will effect a projected 41 million U.S. citizens. Whether or not they see AU accounts as unacceptable is irrelevant. Their stated model is in direct violation of the ECOA. This isn't too hard to comprehend for most. Now, as to what it means for the average consumer . . . it means that you're scores may drop if you have AU accounts. Plain and simple. FI has already said this so let's not re-invent the wheel. And most creditors simply don't allow you to switch an account over to joint. Citibank, Chase, Discover, AMEX, forget it. Even if they did, it would require an inquiry.
I was merely answering the poster's question. My view, and my view alone. I can see where this is a hot button issue for you, but there seems little need to disregard the obvious. FICO is going to take the opportunity to make changes as THEY see fit. I think that would include any number of changes since they see an opportunity to "clean up" some minor details. Nothing much different, here, than Mozilla or Microsoft making periodic service releases of Firefox and IE. The basics remain the same, some of the details change. Moving on, lets say for, example, there is a speed limit sign on a highway that has 200,000 cars passing it each day. Highway department chooses to remove the sign. 200,000 see the change, or more appropriately, don't see the change. What is the effect? Depending on where the sign was, not a great deal. Your figure of 41 million and the "damage" that they sustain needs substantiation. You don't have any now, and it may be difficult to ascertain in the future. We're back at speculation. Unless and until you can make the case with specifics, your words are just so much spin, just like those of F-I. If you're sufficiently confident of your case, get busy sharpening your arguments and researching your case; the complaint should write itself. You'll need only to fill in the facts to suit your case. There is a class action suit ready for your attention, and it could make you rich. Go for it. I prefer the more measured approach. See what actually happens and then pursue.
I know you're answering questions and I applaud you for that. I mean that sincerely. I think this is a good topic and one of the few places on the net, and I mean one of the FEW, where the average Joe can come close to the truth on this topic. That being said however, it seems that you are denying the obvious. Now, I agree with your statements that we should let readers judge for themselves. That is what I'm trying to do by presenting a clear reading of the law and how that law applies to FI clearly stated intentions. I fear that your arguments cloud the real issues when you get into ancillary issues such as "how" and parse nipping language. Such things do not work in Court and here, it can serve to confuse people. Maybe not, I don't know. What I am saying and what I want people to take away from our discussion is that FI has stated that no AU accounts will be considered. In other words, they won't be scored at all. They have said this. They also said that this model would be applied to Experian in September and it never happened for whatever reason. In any event, the ECOA says everything which an applicant is permitted to use must be considered in order for the model to be valid. FI new model would therefore be in violation. I think this is clear and I don't want people to be confused about this. Will FI push forward, again, I doubt it. If they do, there will be lawsuits. An example, since you asked, would be as such. Take a woman who is only listed on her husbands accounts. She has no credit because she is a homemaker. Now, these are older folks and they honestly beleive that she can't get credit products insofar as she has no income. Anyway, husband up and dies sometime in 2008. They have no knowledge about Fair Isaac or any other thing related to credit. All they know is the wife had been listed on husbands credit cards. Well, wife goes to finance husbands burial and is declined. Why . . . because she has no score. Out of the projected 41 million americans that will be effected, the above will happen and more than just a couple of times. So, take my dog out of this fight insofar as it would be the extreme exception to the rule in terms of damages. This change, if implemented, has far reaching implications and in light of them, it will not stand. As far as our intentions of filing a Complaint should this model come to light, you can bet on it. We've already considered it and you're right, it is merely a matter of finding a plaintiff and those similarly situated to them.
It's important to me. Like you said it helps people who are on the cusp of repaired credit. I fought long and hard to pull my credit up from 435-480 in early 2006 until it got to the dreaded high 500- low 600 range around September of this year. I couldn't seem to move out of there and one of the big complaints on all of my credit scores was that I didn't have very many good current accounts. All I had was my student loans and a sub-prime card. I asked my daddy if he'd put me on a couple of his low-usage, high limit cards and, ka-boom, my scores go up the necessary 25 to 50 poimts so I can get credit on my own. So, yeah the loss of AU from the scoring would probably make me grumpy. Hopefully, by the time anything happens, if anything happens, I'll have enough time on my own positive tradelines that it won't matter
The credit industry has moved far from living on collected interest on loans and credit cards...They have learned how to increase profits from their think tanks.. Changing of the FICO scores simply means the "master" is sharpening their pencils. Its very apparent the goal is to modify the score (profits)but they are having a hard time making it pass the legal issues. Withn the projected profit motivation behind them,its only a matter of time the "servants" will feel the changes. Its to bad big brother likes their "candy".. I would Watch for Federal changes that will make the new FICO legal... This post and the many like it enlighten those of us who are ignorant of this credit industry,and its dirty tricks... So it appears thru reading this post that perspectives are different with the posters on this subject, yet the out come for all the rest of us is good information, THE BEST!! that we learn from .So have at it boys,,,,no low blows come out swinging..lol ..
Apex, your points are well taken, but it is the "if" that causes difficulty. There could be a variety of reasons why the FICO algorithm is delayed, I have rarely seen service upgrades for modest fixes that have been delivered on time. But such is the nature of software implementation, and testing often reveals unintentional errors. At a macro level, the discussion is fairly simple. They are trying to make it difficult for you to do business. You are trying to use their system to get around their intent. You are both chasing dollars. They are not just going to roll over and die just because you say they should, nor are you going to give up trying to game their system because of their efforts. Far ranging implications in no way equates to damages, but that appears to be your thrust. And it has been my experience that adjustments to complex modeling equations have percentage impacts so small as to be relatively insignificant. To have significant impact requires a fundamental restructuring of the equation, not of the adjustment of a factor or two. Cumulative effect of changes can have some bearing, but that, too, tends to have relatively low influence on the results. My assessment is that the overall effect of these changes will be minimal, and I would believe sufficiently minimal so as to limit your ability to create a sustainable class action. The indistinctly defined nature of F-I's algorithm and their ability to stand apart from the legal action provides them with a high degree of insulation. And rest assured, their attorney corps will be fairly competent in representing their interests. Unlikely to be the slam dunk envisioned. I still take the more cautious road. Wait until there is something real to complain about and make decisions then. A brief aside: To be consistent, shouldn't this read "we"?
Okay . . . we. I have a partner thus, we don't want any confusion. We also have an administrative assistant and she doesn't want any confusion either. Oh, then we have counsel and he doesn't want confusion so count him in. And . . . then there are a few clerks, so them too. With that said, it is bigger than a few people that "buy" tradelines. If you think that FICO is exclusively targeting companies such as mine and the people who purchase them, you're naive. You can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is illogical. You're also rather naive if you feel that a projected 41 million americans effected is "minimal." To be candid, your statements are simply ridiculous. The have no support and are foolish. I don't mean to offend you but, lets call a spade a spade. I'll contest your statements in a simple context in order to demonstrate how outrageous they are: ECOA says one thing, FI makes a model that is contravention to it, They have already said model will be in contravention to it, They have already said it will cause scoring decreases, They do it, Scores drop, Millions apply for credit every day, Millions are now declined that were approved days before, Said Millions see that scores drop in an inexplicable fashion, "One" comes to us . . . See how that works? Not too difficult to certify a class under this paradigm. I don't need to know anything about the model because this model is now a part of the common and public knowledge base. There is nothing to insulate because they've already let the cat out of the bag. Hell, a newspaper article citing their CEO is enough. Apply his statements to scoring decreases and the ECOA. That is what is called a JMOL and in legal circles, it is called a "slam-dunk." In any event and circling back to our original discussion as to whether the proposed model is illegal, yes it is and you're opinions are misplaced. That is all I really care to elaborate on it. Legally and practically speaking, you opinions are misplaced. Anyone logical person can see that. If you can read the ECOA and how FI's model applies to it, that is the only logical conclusion to be drawn. Now, I'm done pissing . . . say what you will hereafter because I know you will.
