Ok, lets call the spade a spade. Without first-hand evidence you have nothing; you can prove nothing. Everything you have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand, or outright speculation . Foolish? You bet. But who is the fool? Plain, simple and direct. Wait until you get evidence and you may, just may, have a case. But you are going to have to get through FICO's attorney set and the courts to make your point. The court is the ultimate decider. Not you, not me. Is there something in this statement that you disagree with? Is that straight enough?
Since it is the Christmas season, I am willing to let our disagreements come to reconcilation via a gift to you. As you probably know, I am from West Virginia. By extension of that, I am a huge WVU fan. You may or may not be a college football fan but, in any event, we recently lost our coach who I will simply refer to herein as Pig Vommit. Anyway, I just had to lay the groundwork with the above. As a WVU fan, I am going to purchase the following item per eBay and send it to you as a Christmas gift. I hope this puts everything behind us. http://cgi.ebay.com/WVU-Fans-Beard_...ryZ24640QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem In case you didn't pick up on it, this is to add a little levity. I thought this was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. In any event, we're at each other too hot and heavy . . .
HUH? "If one is in trouble and in doubt... Run in circles, scream and shout"?? <Start rant.> In other words, what does the above post have to do with the topic of this thread? It seems that someone is a bit sore because they have been told that their entire motivation over arguing that F-I has "no right" to change the FICO algorithm is as concerned about their business' ability to earn the "filthy lucre" as is F-I's. It's amazing how loud people SOME PEOPLE can whine (or is it "moo" ? ) when THEIR business' "bottom line" is on the line... <Rant over.> To continue with the real discussion appropriate to this thread, we must consider that the problem Fair-Isaac is facing is one of how to compensate those who were using the AU status as intended, such as a new way to give them "credit" (no pun intended). [After all, their clients don't want to lose potential customers if they don't have to.] The truth is Fair-Isaac likely has no viable way to do this at this time that won't end up just as abused as the AU status is/was. Keep in mind, once again, that they DO have a duty to their clients--the creditors--and don't give me that dreck about alleged illegalities per the FCRA. Or the ECOA: Nothing they are doing now (as far as we know and/or can prove to the satisfaction of a judge) in connection with this change in the credit scoring algorithm violates or will violate either law as it currently is codified. Period.
It was a joke . . . Oracle got it and we've dropped it. It would be the same as if I made the post to you and linked it to eBay for a stupid looking bike or something. Again, it was just a joke. Take it easy. Now, I've said all I'm going to say on the topic so feel free to have at it. I'd presume the same applies to Oracle as well but, I can't speak for him or her.
Fair Isaac never needed to get involved in the first place. So a handfull of people are gaming the system? The easy solution is to follow the procedures and rules that are in place already. Credit reporting is voluntary. The credit card issuers do not have to report the AU's. Unless they are a spouse. That is where the ECOA does come into play. Reporting AU's for spouses is required, and the new model would hurt the people the ECOA was put in place for. Fair Isaac can make up any model they want. But, it is the lenders that are at risk, again under the ECOA, if they use a model that has not been properly tested, and meets the proper criteria. Did congress intend that the ECOA protect certain groups, but FICO could wipe that out because they don't like a few people gaming the system? I doubt it. You don't have to know the deep inner workings of the model to see the violations. FI states they are doing away with all AU's. That will damage at least some of the consumers under ECOA. The inner workings of the model are not important when you have results that violate and treat certain groups in a disparate manner.
Sir, seeing them does not equate to proving them. To prove them you need corroborating detail and clear and convincing causal chain. The detail to which you must refer is currently just speculation, and a relatively uniformed variety thereof since F-I has yet to reveal how they will implement what ever it is the might choose to implement. The proof must satisfy, not you, not me, but the Court. What you might see may not rise to the level that is required. There are lots of actions that are discriminatory that do not rise to a provable, or even actionable, level. Your point that banks and CCs are not required to report AUs except for spouse is quite right. You are also right to state that it is the CRA at risk, not F-I. But therein lies the stumbling block. How does a lawsuit connect F-I to the case that encompasses a transfer of legal liability? Sue the CRAs for anything you want; you will have to work very hard to drag F-I into the mix as a full and equal partner. As far as I can tell, F-I is free to do as they choose with a fair degree of impunity. Apex and his brothers can complain all they wish, but it remains his case to make. I assure you it would not be unopposed. This discussion is about FICO-08. It should actually be more about how the CRAs will deal with it. That too, however, is speculation; plain and unadulterated, just more speculation.
Hypothetical: Company manufactures guns and sells them to Walmart. It is known fact that the guns are capable of killing. Minor child goes into WM and purchases gun, then kills someone. Why would I spend any time trying to prove how the guns were designed and made? I go after WM for selling the gun illegally. FI has clearly stated what their intentions are. How and why do not matter at this point. I wouldn't need to drag them in the case because (1) they did nothing wrong to consumers, and (2) I don't need to prove the details of how their model works, only that by their own admission it treats everyone equally when there are protected groups. If it were me I would go after the lenders for using a model that violates ECOA on several counts. The lenders would have to go after FI for selling them a defective product. Also, just to clarify. I never said the CRA's had any liability in this. In fact, I don't believe they or FI would have any at all, at least not to the consumer. I would go after the lenders for using a scoring model that hurts my score. The burden is on the lenders under the ECOA.
Sounds to me like a better lawsuit than simply suing over one's decreased FAKO's. In either instance one will still have to prove damages.
Wal-Mart would have a certain degree of protection if they could establish that they had acted reasonably and responsibly and that the sale was a result of fraud on the part of the minor. More mitigation than protection, but you get my drift. Once again, the conversation has been about FICO-08, Nothing that has been stated alters my position regarding an effort to attack FICO. The point of holding the lender liable is quite correct. But the difficulty there is that the farther one gets from the alleged "cause", the more difficult it is to establish the discrimination as actionable. In your hypothetical, the distance was short, easily established. In the matter under discussion, however, the distance is far greater. The greater the difficulty in establishing a particular consequence as discrimination of the illegal variety, the lower the chances of prevailing. True only after the plaintiff establishes a legitimate and legally acceptable cause of action. No CoA, no burden. Translation: First, You've got to get there! The court is not likely to allow the plaintiff to go fishing on speculative cause.
Actually I don't think it is a long reach at all. From what I was just reading, FI developes the model and hands it to the lender with an instruction manual. At that point, according to the OCC, the lender bears all the responsibility of validating the model and making sure they follow the correct procedures. So again, they know what the model does, the lender has to make the right choices and use it for the correct loan types to avoid violations. If they choose to use FICO 08 for a loan to a spouse protected under ECOA, they are not following procedures. Very similar to "redlining", and an easy step to disparate treatment. Lender: "We knew that spouses are protected under ECOA, but we chose to use a model that hurts them, and groups all applicants in the same manner." OCC says that simply making that statement is illegal. The only escape for the lender is "business necessity". I have already shown a simple solution to avoid using FICO 08. The lenders simply stop reporting all AU's unless it is required under ECOA.
Back to the "if" again. With enough ifs chained together, it's possible to establish a lot of things, things far beyond what reality might produce. It is what reality produces that's of interest and import. It is theoretically possible to construct a model that will reward, penalize and be neutral across a broad spectrum, such that systematic discrimination not be apparent. But that, too is speculation. A logical solution. But there may be others that THEY see that we do not. But that, too, is speculation. That may, ultimately, be what they might choose as a way around the issue.
If a collector calls after 9 pm it is a violation... If a collector harasses you it is a violation... If lenders do not follow ECOA it is a violation... I have to use the word if, because they have not implemented FICO 08 yet, as far as I know. It is not possible for them to violate until they violate. But, I would rather look at all sides of the issue and try to stay ahead of them, rather than wait until the damage is done to start looking for solutions. Nothing wrong with informing consumers, and letting them know what the industry is up to as far as I can see.
If collector doesn't call? No violation. If collector doesn't harass? No violation. If lenders follow ECOA? No violation. If no violation? No damages If no damages? No cause of action. If no cause of action? No case. If no case? Well, enough said. You have to use the word if because you do not know. As you so properly say, it is not possible for them to violate until they do. So there's your starting point. A careful read of what I have written will reveal that as a premise in this discussion. One needs to see the violation to proceed in an informed and ultimately successful fashion. Looking at all sides also means looking at the difficulties that you face in mounting your challenge. I would have thought that was understood. They are manifold, as this thread has tried to explore. Your opposition will be formidable. Informing consumers is a noble aim, and your studied nobility is to be admired. Postulating that which is beyond what might reasonably be anticipated is quite another thing, particularly when it is based on a chain of speculative ifs. Nested ifs and thens not rooted in some set of confirmable facts accomplish little. Unless you are lucky, they never will.
Just to clarify some misinformation in this thread: You could argue that, but it is highly flawed. I didn't have anything to do with Vick killing dogs, and I don't have to inform every person that I meet lest they not know my true history. The credit histories are not inaccurate, because they do list the AU accounts. Every lender that pulls the report can clearly see it. You and a few others have a problem with giving points in the scoring system for that. The same scoring system that was set up by the lenders in the first place, who got caught in the subprime scandal, and now want to cry foul and place the blame on someone other than themselves. I could write pages on the many problems in the system, but an AU account is not one of them. It is a very valid arguement as I will point out below. Ever heard of redlining in the mortgage industry? "We only give loans of $75,000 in the area north of Main St." Highly illegal, although it appears to treat all people equally. The problem is that the ECOA sets up special groups that cannot be treated equally, so as to give them access to credit they otherwise would not be able to. It is the tricky way lenders try to make people believe that everyone is equal that gets them into trouble. The ECOA provides that any attempt to not treat people as stated is discrimination. Not allowing for a spousal AU is prohibited, and therefore discrimination. Now you want people to be legally liable for a debt even if state law says they are not? That opens up all kinds of problems. A college student should have to go through collection and possible BK, because his parents gave him an AU account to buy books, then had the nerve to get cancer and not pay their bills? Extreme scenario, but the possibilities are endless, and there are 50 sets of state laws that do not all make an AU, or even a spouse liable for every debt. That is because the FCRA deals with credit reporting, not credit creating or account maintenance. Look at the rest of the Consumer Credit Protection ACT and you will find that any person can name any other person as an AU, and that if lenders allow AU's for some people, they cannot dissallow them for others. You will also find that in some cases a tradeline must be reported for a person that is not the primary or joint card holder, but merely an AU. You may want to check that again. ECOA clearly states that spouses have the right to have any account reported in both names, AU or joint does not matter. You missed a whole section called Regulation B. That section of the ECOA along with the TILA provide for the rules of AU's, who can be one, when they must be reported, etc. CCPA - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_41.html ECOA Regulation B - http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title12/12cfr202_main_02.tpl
From: http://ezinearticles.com/?3-Reasons-Why-FICO-08-Will-Not-Happen&id=822498 With all the hubbub surrounding FICO 08, we thought we owed it to our readers to separate the truth from the myth. This is Fair Isaac's "answer" to the problem of authorized users and other complications with the credit score world. It is a software program to be used by all three credit bureaus to weed out authorized users and prevent their scores from being accepted by lenders as "legitimate." It also aims to do much more that could put millions of credit card users in financial jeopardy. Fair Isaac, who incidentally own Experian, said that Experian would begin implementing the new software in September with the other two agencies to follow sometime next year. Well, September has come and gone and no changes have been made. Apparently it has been easier for critics to confuse the public, than to actually implement the software. Even amid all the controversy surrounding the purchase of trade lines, experts in the business have good reason to believe itwill never happen. Here are three legitimate reasons why FICO 08 won't happen: 1. It is not in the interest of any of the three credit agencies to promote or support the use of FICO 08. If it is implemented, the agencies would report the exact same credit score for each individual. Presently, each agency comes up with the score through different means; Experian uses 'Fair Isaac Version2, TransUnion uses Emperica 95 and Equifax uses Beacon 5.0, providing three different scores from which lenders take the middle. If FICO 08 is used, all three agencies will come up with the same score. This would ultimately negate the need for three agencies, when one would be sufficient. Craig Watts, a spokesman for Fair Isaac said regarding the proposed release of FICO 08, "Adopting the FICO blueprint to get the maximum benefit for each repository is difficult because each uses unique data. When we update the FICO score we need to do that individually with each credit reporting agency." Implementing this new software is apparently much more complicated, which may explain why no one has yet begun using it. 2. It would be detrimental to the millions of families facing foreclosure. With the real estate market taking a dive and countless people facing foreclosure (due mainly to lenders and their "creative loan option"), to prevent these same Americans from boosting their credit score through trade lines in order to refinance and get a loan they can afford, would send countless families into foreclosure and our economy spinning out of control. Experts know that lenders and Wall Street banks have attempted to push this program forward as they have the most to lose by people purchasing trade lines and refinancing into affordable loans that they can pay. A loan at a lower rate means hundreds of dollars in the borrowers pockets every month and not the banks'. Even Presidential candidates have remarked that Wall St. banks have stepped up lobbying over the issue of sub-prime lending as underwriting practices have come under scrutiny. They don't want legislation that would ultimately protect the consumer despite recent moves to do so. This is why FICO 08 is their only hope, to continue to line their pockets at the expense of homeowners and to avoid greater speculation regarding their abusive lending practices. 3. FICO 08 could bring legal action against Fair Isaac. Another aspect of FICO 08 is to redistribute credit users into 12 new categories effecting millions of people, many negatively. With the new categories, everyone will shift somewhat and even a slight change downward could mean the difference between a great and a poor credit score. This shift could ultimately cost a consumer hundreds of dollars a month on a mortgage. Experts say that women are more likely to be ill effected as they are often "authorized users" on their husband's credit cards. The shift would bring down the average score of a couple seeking a loan, hurting their chances of qualifying for one they can afford. All that said, legal experts predict a civil action lawsuit on the horizon for Fair Isaac. Not ignorant of this possibility, it is unlikely that they would be willing to risk great financial risk and negative press over a software program, especially if it fails to benefit all three credit bureaus. In addition to these reasons, the fact that none of the credit agencies have yet to implement the system, leads market experts to agree that it simply may not happen. Despite what the critics have to say about the acceptance of trade lines and Fair Isaac's full-fledged marketing campaign to confuse and mislead the public to think the loophole has closed, the remains open. So where does that leave us as a business restoring hope to financially troubled families? Where does this leave you as a consumer trying to keep your home? Trade lines are still the best and fastest method to boost your credit score in 30-45 days, refinance, keep your home and experience financial stability. Ted Stearns, owner of TradeLine Solutions, a San Diego based credit aide company, is not a newcomer to the world of finance. His experience began as an options and futures broker with Currency Trading International about 12 years ago. Since then he has been a financial advisor who hosted a live radio show on AM 1000 KCEO for four years, educating callers and listeners on stocks, bonds and various investments. Over the last five years he has delved into the nationwide mortgage business informing both clients and lenders alike in the arena of purchasing and refinancing. With all former experience as his guide, he has come into the world of trade lines to help clients better their financial situation. Able to glean from the perspective of both lender and client, he has the unique ability to see the need of the purchaser and meet it head on. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ted_J_Stearns
