Well, as some of you have read, momof3 got her scores today from the mortgage lender and there was a big difference between the eloan score from experian and the ACTUAL experian score. I also want to add that I knew it was strange that eloan was able to get a score for me since for the past 4 months, I have been unable to get an experian score from mortgage lenders. There is obviously something wrong or an alert on my file. This happened with 3 different lenders on three different occasions. This proves to me at least that the eloans score is no better than the q space or the 123 credit reports score. It is a quess based on the credit file. THIS SCORE IS NOT ACCURATE. DAMN. roni
Roni, I am sure there is alot of variance in every one of the many scoring methods used by CRAs and internal scoring by creditors. Scoring is far from fair and is a poor indication of future risk. Afterall, I have seen people with bankruptcies under 2 years old that have better scores than me with 3 late accounts that are over 2 years old. Go figure. I hate this Issac guy..lol.
It is not a FICO score and they say as much on their website: "Are there different types of credit scores? There are a number of credit scoring programs on the market. The score shown on the E-LOAN site is prepared by CreditXpert, one of the leading credit scoring companies used by three of the top five U.S. banks." https://www.eloan.com/personalpages/creditscorefaq.jsp
No. MIke. I just meant that my post was not about the scoring system. I was mostly complaining about eloan being so damn off in their model. roni
I don't want to be a pain, but I feel like posting every so often. Scoring is entirely fair and is a very good indication of future risk. If it wasn't, Fair Issac would be out of business rather quickly. Formulas like FICO and CreditXpert may be mysterious (partly because they're trade secrets) but they are what they are because they work, and the banks know exactly how well they work. I'm a mathematician by education if not always by employment, so I have to stand up for them. You like to think you're an exception. Hey, so do I. My score says that 7 out of 10 Americans are less of a risk than I am although I have no debt, plenty of money in the bank, continuous employment for over 2 years, and have never failed to repay a debt in any way. On my 25th birthday my auto insurance premiums were cut in half -- I moved out of that magical "single male 18-24" range (a.k.a. "Death Wish", second only to "single male 16-17" a.k.a. "Mega Death Wish") into a better actuarial table. I didn't feel magically safer on my birthday. I'm sure my agent didn't think I suddenly became less of a risk, but the actuarial tables are derived from hard experience. Same thing with credit scoring models. They are unbiased, we're not. There's a very simple reason someone with a recent bankruptcy can be less of a risk than us: he can't declare bankruptcy again. You and I have that option open. With as many bankruptcies as there are in this country, who can blame the creditors for liking the thought of being safe from that threat? Especially if he's clean post-BK and we have lates, and depending on just what he had written off. It all goes into the score. I wouldn't be surprised if a 2 year old BK was better than a 6.5 year old one, again, especially if there are any negatives in those 6.5 years or if the more recent one had no revolving accounts named. A smart creditor will soak Mr. Recent BK with jaw-dropping interest rates, but he can get credit. (Of course a dumb creditor will use nothing but one number to make all their decisions: acceptance, interest rate, credit line, etc., and that's infuriating.) Anyway, to stay on topic ... I'll mention the difference between my Qspace score and Equifax ScorePower/BEACON score, but I've never bought both at the same time. My last Qspace score was 26 points lower, but then again I got it two months before my last BEACON and I had gone to work on my debt ratios in the meantime. After I move this summer (I don't need another inquiry before then) maybe I'll pull Qspace, Eloan, and whatever CRA's are offering scores by then and report on how it looks. Oh well, back to work. I don't post often, but when I do I don't shut up.
Just one point there Math Wiz. I made A+ in Calculus I, II, and III. FICO is not some advanced math model. It is statistics and forecasting. The point about not being able to declare bankruptcy again making a recent BK a less of a risk is about as ludicrous as can be. Let's see can they just stop paying? Yes. If they took the easy way out with a BK, shouldn't they have to work their way back up the ladder and prove their creditworthiness? Yes. I think I speak for a few people here that think it is B.S. when someone can have a BK less than 2 years old and have a much higher credit score than does a guy who fell behind 2 months on one or two loans, but is willing and able to pay on time in the future. I am sorry, but if you total your car in an at-fault accident, you won't be paying low premiums again in less than 2 years. Same principle.
Logically the system sucks. But statistically it is valid. Fair Isaac doesn't have an opinion on late versus bankruptcy. Their model is based on samplings. So, clearly people 2 years out of bankruptcy have defaulted less in the past than someone who is late 2 years ago. [There are clearly other variables involved here, but as an example.] Perhaps a person who uses bankruptcy is educated enough to handle his debt differently in the future or some such as that. I am not defending it, I am merely explaining the reasons why something like the example given happen. It is all based on empirical default data and if someone 2 years out of bankruptcy has a lower default rate than someone with 2 lates 2 years ago, the software incorporates that in the scoring. It doesn't ask or care why. You see?
Yes, I see quite clearly. It is the same crap used by Insurance companies to figure your premiums. Should my insurance be higher because I live in a state with higher accident rates or because I drive a car that is statistically involved in more accidents or has a higher rate of theft? Crap. How about innocent until proven guilty? Let's look at this scenario shall we? #1 Bill has 5 cc accounts that are 120 days late, and he can't afford to pay them. He drives a new BMW and lives in a $250,000 house. He decides to file BK to protect his assests and disharge his CC accounts. #2 Dave also has 5 cc accounts that are late, same car, same house, etc. Instead of screwing the CC companies and ultimately taxpayers, Dave continues to make payments and eventually gets caught up. So who has better credit in 1 or 2 years? Dave? NO. Because Bill filed BK, all of the CC accounts were discharged and only the BK is on his credit record now. Because of "Fair Issac" and other score models, Dave is punished for taking responsiblity and paying his debts instead of discharging his debts in a BK that the taxpayers ultimately pay for, while Bill rides in his BMW with a smile on his face and more CCs in his wallet. If you can honestly say this system is fair, well, nevermind.
I agree with 'R'. As for e-loan's score not being any better than Qspace, that's exactly right. They both utilize the same CreditXpert scoring mechanism (though they may use different CRA's w/ CreditXpert, getting different results) Momof3's husband's score variations are just one example among many. We've had numerous reports here of CreditXpert's score being very close to the actual FICO/Beacon. We've also had people here whose 2 scores vary only 2-5 points from one another (in my case, 3 points). Consider it a general assessment tool. Saar
Re: All daves or just me? Like I said in my original post. . .I am not defending it. I am just trying to shed some light on it. It is clearly WRONG but that is the way it is. Look at the dozens who have declared bk and have good to excellent credit a few years out? I have 2 paid small charge offs from 95 and no prime lender will touch me. If I had declared bk, I would likely have prime credit again. Sure it sucks but that is the way it is. I read somewhere that if someone who used to live at the same address you do now, defaulted, it counts against you. It is a purely statistical model and while it is wrong and likely violates our civil right, it is how it is done. Until all the scores are available to all consumers and the formula comes into direct sunlight, can these abuses by Fair Isaac be rectified. [Stepping down from soap box now]
Re: All daves or just me? Yes, and the days of applying for credit to a live person is coming to a close. Now you call, apply online, or you fill out an app, they run your score, and "yes" or "no" according to some model acceptance scale. At least at my local bank, I was given an opportunity to explain my situation and dispute incorrect information on my credit reports. My best CC with lowest rate and highest limit happens to be from that local bank in which I talked to a live person. You can't argue with or manipulate a computer. Hehe.
Re: All daves or just me? Well, at least I stirred something up. Mike, I can tell you got my point, like it or not (well I knew you wouldn't) -- the numbers are there for a reason. The problem, I agree, is bankruptcies that are too da(r)n easy for people with zeroish or positive net worths to get. Maybe I defend bankruptcy in general because my girlfriend had one for good reason (my opinion) in '93 and it wasn't the clean start it should have been. (Now her credit is shot for the completely valid reason that she just can't handle money, and with the board's help I'm learning what steps to take first to get things fixed up fastest.) A majority are supposedly for good reason, however we need bankruptcy reform, and I don't mean what's in Congress now. The system being what it is, let's get back to learning from each other how to tidy up our appearence in its eyes. I've lurked here and at other places some of you have been for a while, and I've already learned a lot. A few months ago I didn't know what a debt ratio was and I wondered why I had the lowest of the sub-prime offers in my mailbox all the time. Now I know, I've made some adjustments, and the mailers are back to Platinum, not that I've applied for anything recently. So thanks to all, but don't expect me not to stir the pot every couple days if I do post. ;-]
Regarding the bankruptcy theory/scoring theory: it is inheritantly flawed, for one simple reason: A bankrupcty only guarantees that another one can't be filed in within seven years--it has NO value in predicting whether or not that person will pay their bills and manage their finances in a responsible manner--none. I see it every day in the lending world: bankruptcy discharge in July 1999; first post-bankruptcy credit card received in October, 1999; first 30/60/90 day late payment: February, 2000. And that's just the tip of the financial iceberg. In respect to bankruptcy, FICOs predict nothing. Mini-rant, David
