Does anyone know how to get to the raw codes that the CRAs ship to FICO? Please note: to generate a score, the CRAs transmit a two charactor code to to the FICO software. These codes are combined by FICO to produce a score. I have evidence to prove that these do not always agree with the raw data in the line item. Has anyone disputed these codes?
Gersh, How about posting all you know about the codes and how they get combined/added together. Maybe somone who has a relatively simple or clean report will be able to decipher from their score and what's on their report, exactly what the codes are. Someone posted a link in one of these threads to a letter, it was rather long, that talked about these $7 an hour clerks working at the CRA's whose job it is to read your disputes and boil it down to a 1 or 2 character code, and send this on to the OC's and CA's for verification. The letter went on to say that many times the codes that were decided upon by the workers did not match what was actually written in a consumer dispute, and that sometimes they just popped in any code that came to mind, and that sometimes they were not even checked or were told by their Supervisors to use a certain code cause it was easier to get it verified. Anyone know what link I'm talking about? I wonder if these are the same or similar, or can be found in the same link. FedUp2003
Oh my .. I'm soooo relieved. Trans union just told me that they don't use codes. so then .. all the stuff is submitted long hand to FICO and that software understands it. right .. I think I've been put on that "pain in the ass" list ..
I don't "know" anything. Well .. I take that back. A computer or set of computers porduce a "score." The computer produces the "score" based on information it receives. A computer does better with a math job when it has just numbers to work with. For instance a computer does better with the question 2+2=? than with "You have two apples and two oranges. How many pieces of fruit do you have?" The second way of asking the question has a great deal of translation that needs to be done before it gets to the first form (2+2=?) In our case (credit consumers) this translation is done by humans. Both forms of this data exist at the same time in the CRA's files. Sometimes the human form of data will get updated without the number kind of data being updated. Example: One creditor claimed that I had a account written off in 6/2003. I disputed. The line item changed to reflect the account included in a chapter 13 in 6/98. FICO score didn't change. The reason that it didn't change is that the computer style data didn't change with the human style data. In computer talk I'm still charge off 6/03. I think this is the letter that you talked about. It is sworn testimony before congress.
Re: Incorrectly coded Gersh | 50 posts since Jul 2003 12.37.95.101 | 07.29.2003 @ 04:38 bump THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Yeah, That was the letter before Congress I was thinking of. I did not realize that there were numeric codes that correlate to the actual tradeline info that we see in textual format. That could quite possibly explain why sometimes we see tradelines and/or accounts get updated but the score doesn't change. Probably yet another underhanded tactic that the CRA's pull on us. We see the textual change, what we read on the report, but the actual underlying numerical data/code has not changed, and therefore when FICO is computed, we still have same old bad/lower score than what we think we should have. I bet you have "hit the nail on the head" with this observation or discovery. This is well worth further investigation. FedUp2003
Re: Re: Incorrectly coded I spoke to someone who worked for Experian for 20yrs and they said that there was a 1-99 code system.
Re: Re: Re: Incorrectly coded The next question would be does this scale look differently on an account included in a chapter 13 five years ago or a currently dilenquint account. I would guess that both would be rated 99
