OK apparently some people didn't like my metaphors or may not even get that it was one I am not saying that having bad credit for seven years is ACTUALLY the same as going to prison. It is a different prison of sorts, but as a poet and general writer, I'll never be able to explain it well to the audience But I do think that it is not right to punish someone by almost handicapping them financially for seven years, when much worse things happen and they get slapped on the wrist.
To Doc. in reply to ? 2 2-No but counter measures should not be going off the deep end either. How long 2 years max.for court action.3 years max listed on Credit Reports.
well, this is interesting. I will put in my .02. I once read that FICO is not merely a predictor of a person's economic downfall, it can be a major factor in it. Predict economic instability, lenders increase rates and/or refuse to lend and voila: economic ruin becomes a reality thanks to FICO's prediction. Now, on the flip side... I do think FICO or some model is a necessary evil if we want a credit society... What I don't like is being lied to about what factors into the model, how long things affect us, and of course, my biggest gripe is the data that's fed into the model is normally flawed due to it being dependent on the CRAs flawed sense of complete and accurate. What I think would help most people is stricter guidelines on what gets onto your report in the first place. Your FICO can be drastically skewed unfavorably by a small collection or 2, reaging of an account, duplicate entries, and even Experian's propensity to show old collection entries as current I5s... even on paid accounts. The data, even more than the model, is corrupt. But. To the question of how long... this is interesting. I think most instabilities can be rectified in about 3 years (meaning: you have a catastrophe, you get back on your feet, you pay people back and reestablish some semblence of a credit life again) and thus you can become statistically "stable" as a risk. So, then what's a fair punitive sentence for bad credit? I'd say 5 years is fair. Past that, lenders are simply making money not on your current situation but on past issues. And let's face it, the current time limits are more punitive than predictive... And, remember that lenders' models take into consideration a certain amount of bad debt that's factored into their plan...and with the help of good old George W... MBNA and the like are having banner years thanks to the interest rate reductions... And, fortunately, lenders do use their own models, they can manually review, listen, and override denials, locs, and terms... Ultimately, I believe your credit portfolio will rest more on your ability to negotiate with your lenders than on FICO.
No doubt If creditors had their way they would change it from 7 years to 3 generations so they wouldn't have to ever face you, your children or your grand kids. What about people taking advantage? You will always find people who take advantage of anything! What if I charge $75000 under the current 7 year setup and do it again in 7 years? How many who woulden't do that should we take out for each one who would? 10000 100,000 A million 100 Million-how many?
Yes-but not without restraint and solely at the credit industries whim.They are one of the three most under regulated industries.
Supershawn and all Here is another good fun project for the patriotic. HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU SHOOT BIN LADEN?
I found out long before this board ever came about that the FICO has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with credt risk.Fico is nothing but a tool of plunder used for bilking consumers.The only indicator of risk is the credit report itself and then only if the report is 100% accurate,and we all know they ain't accurate don't we?Tell me how do you take inaccurate credit reports and devise a scoring methed that has any relationship to risk or anything else for thsat matter???Can you answer this for me?no one else has been able to do it for me! FICO was developed strictly as a means to take advantage of credit report errors. and we consumers as a whole bought their story that Fico was a measure of risk:Would we have accepted it so easly if they had touted it as a way to fleece us out of millions?
FICO IS NOT THE MODEL A-They don't want us to know because if we did it would destroy their fico milking machine. B=They needed a way to take advantage of this so they invented FICO. If both a and b were fixed they would abandon the fico because it would no longer work for them!
If info is correct they can't use fico to bilk you so I doubt they want it accurate! The data is indeed very much flawed but to develope a system to bilk U based on false information is even worse there for FICO is even more CORRUPT!! __________________________________Like you say if one can deminstrate stability for 3 years thats enough so another 2 years isn't needed.Therefore 5 years is still much too long:
What is unconstitutional about reporting ACCURATE credit repayment history? Either it was PAID or it WASN'T PAID -- PERIOD. Where did the they become the judge and jury? Very simply put, it's THEIR MONEY you're asking them to loan you and, therefore, the ARE the judge and jury as to whether or not they choose to loan you money and what tools they use to decide.
Mr Shimmer, The better question would be, "What is constitutional about ruining someone's ability to put a roof over their heads"? There is nothing absolute in these situations. How information is reported is not the problem. The problem is the adverse effect that this information causes the consumer. Yes, it is their money that they are loaning out, but that does not give them, nor the credit reporting industry, the right to alienate those who could not help circumstances that were out of their control. This is where the system is "intolerable". Those who have legitimate problems, (and I know it is hard to determine what is legit and what isn't) should not have to be subject to a black and white judge and jury system, that are entire society is reliant upon. Everything that we do, is reliant on credit. Many employers check your credit history before hiring an applicant. This system is not fair, and it is in my opinion, unconstitutional to allow the banking industry and the CRA's, to override the consumers rights to a fair trial. It is discriminatory to say the least. It is comparable to throwing a jaywalker in jail for two years, and allowing a drug dealer 2 years probation. Let the time fit the crime. Of course the lenders must decide who they will lend their funds to. I have no problems with factoring their potential risks, and making a decision based on that. I have a problem with how their is no mercy or leniency in the system itself. It is flawed beyond belief and there is not real parallel, or support, between our rights to a fair judgement and this corporate judge and jury judicial system. They are a conglomerate that is out of control..THe system is based on your credit score. You are just a number, not a person with rights. I wish that I could live in your black and white world of right and wrong...
Godaddyo: Did you really mean that the way it reads? A world like that would be an Orwellian world where there was no room whatever for individualism. As you point out, only black and white. Not many would want to live in a world like that.
Bill, Nope. I would never want to live in a "black and white world". This is nothing personal against jshimmer, I just wish that I could live with such a simple code. Instead, I believe in a punishment fitting each and every crime, based on its severity and intent, or its cause. Yes, there are mandatory sentences with many crimes, but what kind of crime has an innocent bystander of the credit industry committed? The inability to pay back something that they had every intention of doing, when they committed to repayment, is not a crime. The real crime is those who are afforded no rights in these matters. The Federal Trade Commission rulings, are just not fair to the consumer. Those who lobbied the lawmakers got away with murder. A good example is my situation. I had a collection agency, collecting for a bill that was $33 (you may remember). I did not owe this creditor a dime, but they had me mixed up with another customer. My credit score was in the 680's on Equifax, 705 Transunion. I had to threaten these companies over and over again, in order to get results. Even after they took it off, it was reinserted for about a month (twice). Now that the item is gone, the Equifax score has raised 50 POINTS!!! The Trans Union score, over 60 points!! There is a big difference in the type of credit someone receives with these different scores. What happens to those who just cant afford to fight these bozos? They just have to take it, and the law allows it. Unless they are able to educate themselves or secure the services of someone such as yourself, there is no hope. The FTC is a Joke, just like the FCC....
I agree GoDaddyo. The punishment DOESN'T fit the crime in many cases, especially when you get hit with something on your report that doesn't belong to you. My report at EX just tanked 13points because of an 'imposter' account showing up. In addition, there is a phone company out of San Jose who is billing me for a some phone usage out of Cancun Mexico back in March! The billing phone # isn't even mine and they do know who's it is but the burden is on ME to straighten it out. Now this hasn't gone on my reports yet but the potential is that it will before I get it straightened out. Here's a proposal for the FTC: All negative information that is to be placed on a credit file requires advance notification of same. The consumer should then have a 3 month period of time to review, verify, and, if errors found to dispute. Now THAT would be much more fair.
Godaddyo: I'm not ignoring you here. I started to answer your reply early in the morning and got off into one of my long dissertations and then stopped to review it and suddenly decided I didn't have anything worthwill to come back to you on. So I just deleted it. However, I will say that credit issues are not the only area in which a lot of injustice occurs. Our court system and our political system is riddled with injustice and corruption at all levels and we have no one to blame but ourselves. It isn't that we are such a bad people or that our government is so bad because I still believe it's the best in the world, bar none. Some of the things we complain about so bitterly are going to happen in any system of government or justice that man will ever evolve. It is simply that we are human and as humans we are bound to err.
