Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery George I agree FICO can be unfair in certain instances, but you might be the exception to the norm with FICO------->UYGF. `
Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery GEORGE people with scores close to 800 also get negative codes sometimes. The reasons are givin to explain why the score is not a perfect one. www.credco.com/HTML files/CPD/HTML files/brochures/FICO_Credit_Score/FICO_credit_scor_2.htm It also explains why different scores are determined by the 3 different CRA's. The 3 different CRA's grade things a little different. N/A sometimes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery If you don't have the time or the need to read all of the 318 pages (such as losers like me a few times) Peter McCorkell who was the Senior Vice President of Fair Isacc tried to answer some questions about how FICO scores are determined. Also how other lenders determine how to judge an application for some types of credit or mortgages. Page 18,228 inquirys Page 49 how negative credit is graded different Page 111 the Cap One deal CL Page 55 goes into zip codes a bit (minorities,income) example: www.bestplaces.net/cic/g/zipentry.asp Page 106,297 manipulating credit scores to get higher points. The way I see it is lets say your I.Q = XXX Can it be manipulated or changed? How does that work? Fair Isacc will never tell! Short term and long term changes to your credit report. (closing accounts) and etc. also play into it.
In the past I have commented about FICO scores, arguing that we as consumers are not the true customer. FICO was not designed for us - it was designed for lenders to negate risk while attempting to maximize profits. I think the only reason we now have access to scores is that the financial and credit reporting industry have opened their eyes to the profit potential. How many requests for FICO scores at $9 a shot do you think it takes for Experian to realize a 100% return on investment for FairIsaac software scoring systems? Sure FairIsaac made FICO scores available to the public, money talks volumes, but FICO is geared mainly for lenders as evidenced by consumers like George. By all accounts, George should have a score of 800+ but after reading some of Mr. McCorkell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Fair, Isaac and Company's congressional testimony, I am willing to bet that consumers like George are being hendered by several factors beyond a consumer's control - maybe even age and geographic location (sure age can not be used in judgemental evaluations but Reg. B of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act does allow age to be used in statistical scoring systems). How may of us have read the posts by consumers with 750+ FICO scores yet these people report bizarre negative factors such as having 0 inquiries in the past 12-months but FICO asserts that the national average is 1! Even more bewildering is the example of a husband and wife who have similar jobs and incomes and share many of the credit accounts. The wife has an accounts from before they were married and for this reason has a slightly higher credit utilization ratio. The husband is slightly older than the wife and both have lived at the same address in excess of 5-years and neither have any derogatory information, yet the wife's FICO is higher than the husbands. When the two review the negative factors that FICO says impacted their scores, FICO asserts that one negative is the fact that the husband is using 11% of his available credit while the national average is 26%. On the other hand, FICO asserts that the wife is using 17% of her available credit and because the national average is 26%, this is a positive factor. Personally, I find that using the FICO simulator, if I request a score calculation based on being debt free as well as various percentages of credit utilization, that although all of the scenarios produce increases in score, the highest median increase was realized somewhere between 11%-15% credit utiliztion. That would indicate to me that FICO considers being debt free to be more risky than being in debt!?! I understand why so many companies use predictive scoring systems as it has opened up so many avenues to consumers. Like George though, I do take offense at the fact that even though predictive scoring systems have become so wide spread, there is still to large a disparity in the results of the statistical data such sytems produce. Sure everyone makes mistakes - NASA saw a couple billion go down the drain because someone in an obscure computer lab somewhere failed to use or convert to the right measurement system. In our case it is a familiar problem when it comes to software and statistics, the results are only as good as the data from which such results are extrapolated an derived. If you compare 100 consumers and 25 of these consumers have inaccurate data being reported, how accurate can we epect the results of such a comparison to be and therein lies the problem; garbage in, garbage out! Michael
In our case it is a familiar problem when it comes to software and statistics, the results are only as good as the data from which such results are extrapolated an derived. *If you compare 100 consumers and 25 of these consumers have inaccurate data being reported, how accurate can we epect the results of such a comparison to be and therein lies the problem; garbage in, garbage out! Michael ms6073 =================== Congradulations : You finally answered this question. Why was Fico unable to assign the correct score? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by lbrown59 Here is how Fico works: A bag of marbles represents the consumer. CRA 1 shows 25 red marbles in the bag. CRA 2 reports 25 blue marbles in the sack CRA 3 Says 25 Green marbles in the bag. FICO analyzes the information from all three of the CRAS and assigns a score of 75 to the sack made up of 25 each of red blue and green marbles. Upon opening the sack we find it contains 100 black marbles. Why was Fico unable to assign the correct score? THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
George I agree FICO can be unfair in certain instances, but you might be the exception to the norm with FICO------->UYGF. ***My Cats Christmas List*** ========================== Am I to take this to mean That the 300,000 or so post on this board are exceptions to the norm.?
ms6073 is right on - FICO is for lenders not consumers. it is a risk score and as much as a consumer can work the system, there will always be variables outside their control. as more and more consumers work the fico system to their advance we lenders are having to utilize "internal scorecards" to gauge risk. everyday consumers say to me "why'd i get this rate - my fico is 700" and people don't realize that risk isn't just about score - its job length, residency length, occupation, new credit,etc.... as a lender, i dont care what your FICO is...i care what the "risk score" my ISC gives me. as a consumer - its a personal goal to break 800.
Credit "Scores" should be abolished. I repaired my credit - even removing a COLLECTION account and ... my score DROPPED 100 points just since this summer. 100 points -- I now have a "score" of 581 with a PERFECT CREDIT REPORT WITH NOT ONE LATE PAYMENT. Not one! But because mortgages were paid off by refi'ing them as lower rate/easier payment "lines of credit" despite no balance changes by credit ratio is now like 81% so ... on paper for the "score" I look like a terrible credit risk. I am SO PISSED. Both that Equifax Customer No-Service just keeps parroting "well what you need to do is pay your bills on time ..." despite my complete clean "pays as agreed" report on EVERYTHING. They have no CLUE why the score is what it is and can only figuratively shrug and say "well there must be a reason." Not to mention my "Friend" the mortgage broker who didn't mention this possibility when these equity lines seemed like such a great idea. Scores are RIDICULOUS.
Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery I would agree that FICO scores are mostly for lenders. If FICO scores were not used at all, it would take SO much more time to process applications for credit. Fair Isaac sold the system to near perfection. The system is flawed but it has a huge impact in todays credit world. I guess you can't really blame the CRA's for cashing in on it though. The CRA's want to keep the FICO score formula as much as a mystery as Fair Isaac does. If more consumers were actually aware of how the score is somewhat determined, the CRA's would have ALOT more work to do then what they can already handle. If more of us actually knew which areas of our credit life we could attack, rebuild or manipulate it would be a nightmare for the CRA's. For a consumer like GEORGE, outstanding debt accounts for 30% of the score. That is a huge percentage if you really think about it. GEORGE does not have to answer to anyone why his balances are high, GEORGE probably knows what he is doing. FICO does not factor the APR or income. The only variable that is really tied to someones age would be payment and credit history. Lets say the maximum FICO score is 850. Outstanding debt accounts for roughly 30% of someones score. The number of FICO points affected would be ? out of 255 points. Lets say he would score 127 points out of 255 on just that alone. That would be about half. 850-127=723. Fair Isacc already has the system in place to account for sudden short term changes to a credit report, such as balances being suddenly paid. As more months go by the points will slowly be recovered, and it takes time. As far as the FICO simulator goes with balances to credit lines. Zero percent is a bad number for just about everyone. That would mean that you would carry zero balances on your accounts. FICO figures in that you will not create much of a payment history with no balances. That is why balances between 2-15% are usually optimal. People with higher FICO scores are able to carry balances compared to others with low FICO scores. Also people with FICO scores 750+ will get negative reasons just like anyone else. The reasons are stated because the consumer did not receive a FICO score of 850. If you were 750-849 would you like to know why you do not have a 850? Lets say 25 out of 100 have inaccurate data on their reports. Some of these people would gain from it. And to some it would have a negative impact. How many final credit decisions actually go one way or another based on that. I would say not that many. If someone was turned down for an unknown and unexpected reason, I'm sure some of them would look into it and try to fix the problem. I agree the system is by no means anywhere close to perfect. But what other choices are there? If more consumers looked into the FICO score mystery and tried to figure out some of the basic formulas that drive the score up and down, along with the inaccurate credit reports. It would put alot more heat on the CRA's. Would that be a bad thing? Would that mean a FICO score is not really for the consumer? I'm sure the CRA's put alot of thought into it before cashing in on it. I guess time will tell how some of this will play out.
You lost some credit history. The short term effect of the account being deleted is negative at this point. Overall it will be a good thing though. FICO points take time to get back with sudden changes.
LB.....your math is a little off, by 299,950. There have only been 50 as of your post. No, I don't think 50 represents the norm, particularly when the 50 posts are comprised of about 9 distinct posters.
Your "friend" didn't mention it at all? I would be pissed too. I guess your "friend" was doing their job.
Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery She - a profesional mortgage broker! - still acts shocked. Seems to think that since the equity was on secured properties (rental houses) that this shouldn't be reporting like this? I am SO PISSED. I mean, I cannot have this kind of credit score - it affects my ability to do business EVERY DAY! Not to mention that I give it a short amount of time for all related creditors to start randomly upping my rates due to my "increased risk of lowered score" I'm not ready to accept that there is NOTHING I can do. If only to kill this person. First Equifax, then this person. In that order. Might as well be hung for many as for one.
Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery She - a profesional mortgage broker! - still acts shocked. Seems to think that since the equity was on secured properties (rental houses) that this shouldn't be reporting like this? I am SO PISSED. I mean, I cannot have this kind of credit score - it affects my ability to do business EVERY DAY! Not to mention that I give it a short amount of time for all related creditors to start randomly upping my rates due to my "increased risk of lowered score" I'm not ready to accept that there is NOTHING I can do. If only to kill this person. First Equifax, then this person. In that order. Might as well be hung for many as for one.
Re: Re: Credit Score Mystery Okay, am I just overreacting. Experian thinks my credit score is fine - good in fact! Is equifax just wacked? Should I cease losing sleep of FAKE-O scores? I feel a) like an idiot for getting so wranged up over this for, I hope, no real reason and b) still quite fearful to let Transunion be the tie-breaker. P.S. Experian's only issue with me is "too many inquiries in 12 month period) four of the five being mortgage rate shopping - most on same day, one eight days later. I understand under FCRA they can't hold that against you, but they all do? What's that about ... ?
