Forum
|
|
Forum
|
| Subtopic | Msgs | Last Updated |
     | Sunday, January 09, 2000 - 06:11 pm  At http://www.bayhouse.com/FICOisFRAUD.html you can see how Credit Scores are arbitrary. Apparently the Fair Isaac software is FLAWED! Unless of course YOU can tell me why the Scores changed from day to day, I'd say the page is proof. What a difference a day makes: The Borrower's TRW Score 12 point DROP from 671 to 659 will change the 7-30 FNMA approval (660 required) to a DECLINE. Magically, this Score INCREASED by 17 points only ONE day later! The CoBorrower suffered a 24 point drop in a single day! I'm sorry for the poor quality of the reports, but I don't have a scanner in my camper, used the camcorder. If readers think it's important to get better quality pics I'll find a Kinkos. Anyway, it should be good enough for the experts to try to come up with an explanation. I appreciate any suggestions as to what caused the changes in the Scores. Thanks, Christine
|
| | Saturday, January 15, 2000 - 04:49 pm The new .jpgs are huge, but I'm hoping to get a response, finally. http://www.bayhouse.com/FICOisFRAUD.html
|
| | Saturday, January 15, 2000 - 09:17 pm The 07/30 report and the 07/31 report are identical. The 07/30 report produced a score resulting in acceptance. The 07/31 report produced a score resulting in denial. Why? What caused the changes in the scores? Was there a full moon on 07/31, or did the ball on the roulette wheel land on a red number (applicant must be in the "red")? Christine has provided solid, hard core evidence that the credit scoring system is seriously flawed. If credit scoring is an accurate predictor of default, then how could a person go from being an acceptable risk to a bad risk in the course of one day with no changes in his/her credit profile? We are not talking about reports from different credit bureaus. We are talking about the exact same information from the exact same credit vendor. Two different scores were produced from the exact same data! One score results in approval, the other results in denial. How can that be explained, let alone justified?
|
| | Sunday, January 16, 2000 - 01:59 pm The reason there was a change in the scores has to do with the changeover from the one month to the other. It should come as no surprise to anyone that a person's score that is taken on 6/29 will be different from a person's score that is taken on 7/2. Past delinquencies are a month further in the past on 7/2 than they were on 6/29. On the other hand the scoring model is also looking at the revolving account information and saying, "Hmmm...he was current on 6/1 but now it's 7/2 and there's no update as to how his account was doing on 7/1. He has a lack of revolving account information and a lack of recent installment loan information. It's been 30+ days since this account was updated -- that's bad." I think if you pull ANYONE's information on the 30th of the month and pull their info on the very next day you'll find different scores. Maybe those scores will go up and maybe they'll go down. It's a crap shoot. Now I know what you're going to say -- you're just there waiting to type, "But it's not fair that a person's score should change because the creditor hasn't updated their profile yet. It's totally not their fault and anyways most creditors don't update the information until around the 10th of the month anyway. Why should we be punished for that?" Life isn't fair. It's nasty, brutish and short. Wonderfully nice people get cancer and suffer horrible, agonizing deaths. Purely evil jerks end up with a lot of money; a beautiful wife; lovely, healthy children and the adoration of millions of Americans. Babies, through no fault of their own, are born addicted to crack, malnourished and unloved. That's the way life is.
|
| | Sunday, January 16, 2000 - 03:11 pm Sean: Finally even YOU are admitting that Scores are pure luck. Wonderful people get lousy Scores because it's the wrong time of the month. You just blew your "It's statistically proven bla bla bla ..." arguments. Obviously, you now agree that those statistics MUST be wrong. You wrote: "Wonderfully nice people get cancer and suffer horrible, agonizing deaths. Purely evil jerks end up with a lot of money; a beautiful wife; lovely, healthy children and the adoration of millions of Americans. Babies, through no fault of their own, are born addicted to crack, malnourished and unloved. That's the way life is." I agree with you 100%. Wonderfully nice people get cancer, and that's why we spend literally BILLIONS on research for cancer cures. Fortunately, it doesn't take billions to get rid of the FICO cancer. All we need is ONE law, prohibiting Credit Scoring once and for all for any purpose. Thanks again, Sean, for finally agreeing with us. I don't understand why you are talking about FICTIONAL reports when this topic ONLY pertains to the ACTUAL reports published at the FICO Fraud page? 1) WHY did the CoBorrower's FICO Score drop 24 points from 7/30 to 7/31? I don't notice any difference in reporting dates. 2) WHY did the Borrower's FICO Score drop 12 points from 7/30 to 7/31 and increase 17 points by 8/1? We are NOT talking generalities here, but I am referring to the reports at http://www.bayhouse.com/FICOisFRAUD.html
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 06:05 am The simple answer to your question is: I don't know why it dropped, but let's "take a look around" and see if there's anything unusual going on. Do you deny that a computer model might look at the raw data on 7/30 and see that the most recent information it has is 29 days old and think "That's acceptable" and the very next day (7/31) it might not look at the data and say, "Yesterday it was 29 days and that was ok, now it's 30 days old and that's going to be a few, small minuses." Secondly, your profile has some serious flaws. Where are the adverse action codes to tell us why, specifically, they didn't score better. Did those codes change? Apparently you didn't get that information. We are theorizing in the dark without that information. Did you not bother to include it on your jpeg or don't you have it? Thirdly, as I have already pointed out, apparently your EZ-read profile only shows inquiries in the past 90 days. Were there inquiries made on their profile between day 91 and day 730? Inquiries can, after all, remain on a person's profile for 24 months and they can affect a person's score for 12 months. Don't you think that unknown information may be relevant? Why is it not provided?
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 03:33 pm It's great that Sean has posted his report, but it has really NOTHING to do with this topic, so I moved it in a the new topic, "Sean's report, and credit accuracy." As far as the completeness of the published reports goes, I didn't publish the part with my Clients' names and report numbers, and I blacked out their account numbers. Other than that, you see exactly what I got. It's the tri-merged preliminary mortgage credit report by Financial Datalink. I've had better, I've had worse, and in 5 or 6 years of brokering mortgages I tried AT LEAST 10 different providers. Sooner or later they ALL sucked. I'd be thrilled to have an indication of which bureau(s) the individual accounts were reported to, and who each account belongs to. Yet, in this case, because NO changes were reported between 7/30 and 7/31, it is completely irrelevant. While the (missing) adverse action codes would show us what the 4 most important reasons for the lower than perfect Scores are, they are also irrelevant. I am only concerned with the CHANGES of the Scores. Sean is correct about the possibility of an inquiry dropping off due to the 12 months limitation. HOWEVER, in that case, wouldn't the score go UP? Am I just really dimwitted? I thought inquiries are BAD! Why does the Score go down when an inquiry drops off? And we're back to: Why did the Co-Borrower's Score DROP 24 points from 7/30 to 7/31?????
|
| | Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 06:02 am Christine In my own experience, I have seen similar things to what you show. Since the first time, I then made it a point to get the individual reports from the CRA's that same day that I had someone pull a merged report. This might shed some light (I agree, it still smells stinky). Sean has some good points, and probably explains why these things happened. I'd say the first problem is that since you are using a merged report, you don't know what the merged file is throwing out when it find the duplicates. To understand the scores delivered by the bureaus, you need the bureaus' data. Makes for a messier job if you have to pick through three reports, but if you want to have a CHANCE of understanding the score (notice I didn't say want to understand) you need the individual bureau data. For example, on an Experian report of mine last year it said I had 9 paid accounts. However, on a merged report that same day, if I counted all the accounts that the merged software said were in the Experian file and said PAID, I got 12. So the merging software is showing you the accounts as sort of a combined status. You can't tell for sure with the merged files. Next, there is clearly a problem somewhere, either at the bureau or at the Financial Datalink with the merging software because all three say no inquiries in the last 90 days. Well, clearly the second one should say one and the third one should say two. My guess is this. First, if I read the ECOA column correctly, the co-borrower has only 1 account. Even the borrower only has about 5 accounts. According to Fair Isaac, average is like 11. My interpretation of that is that with very few tradelines, each one has a bigger impact. My report has 40, so no one tradeline ever seems to have a huge impact, however, for a few years, Equifax had two files on me, one was very short, and little things had big impacts on it. My guess is that the drop from day one to day two for both applicants is due to the previous day's inquiries. Even though the merged report doesn't show it. The reason the co-borrowers score dropped more than the borrowers is 1.) she only has one account, so i think an inquiry has a bigger affect on her and two, since she doesn't have any derogatories (like the borrower), she is probably on a different scorecard where, since there is nothing bad, the other factors like inquiries and kinds of accounts count more. The raise from day two to day 3 is most likely what Sean said, the month switch over. The derogatory account on borrower 1 went from 3 to 3.5 years old (at that age, the increments appear to be 6, or 12 or even 24 months) plus, on the third report, his Credit Union available went up and the balance went down, so he is at a lower utilization now. Although, it being an auto loan, I find it wierd that the available (or high) went up, maybe the merging software decided to show the high from the other bureau this time. Does this explain things for sure, no, but I hope it helps. For another data point, my score from Experian was exactly the same after 3 inquiries. Of course, they were like inquires number 7,8 and 9, and I was definitely on a different score card (there was an open collection showing on mine at the time) so inquiries probably didn't count as much on mine, and since they seem to go in increments, maybe 6-10 counts for the exact same number. If you want to understand the scores, I suggest you use the files directly from the bureaus. I know it makes a bigger pain in the butt than using the merged files for real underwriting, where you actually want to see a person's credit history instead of the number. But if the guarantor or the investor is going to insist on the number, well, don't get me started...... On a side note, it would be interesting to know if the co-borrower is in both bureaus (probably or she wouldn't get a score) and if so, does it show the same balance and limit and age. It would give some interesting insight into the scores since only 1 tradeline exists. Hope this helps
|
| | Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 08:20 am The saga continues! Let me share with you a report I am looking at now and get your opinions. Scores: Equifax: 670 Trans Union: 650 Experian: 657 Great scores ,good ones anyway right? Now here is what her credit shows and you tell me how the H*** she scored as she did! R.Estate loans: Zero Installments: $29,567.00- 13 accounts all at or near limits. Revolving: 441.00- 3 accounts Collection accounts: 8- 11,500.00 Inquiries: 18--- How does a person with this scenario score alsmost as high if not higher then somone with good accounts, few Inquiries and NO collection? Anything she may have that is positive should be a wash compared to the collection-derogitory data. I have no clue how the heck they calulated this one!
|
| | Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 09:58 am Well, just based on what you have here, it's tough to say, but this would be my bet. My guess is you are looking at a merged report. Do each of the 3 CRA's show 8 collection accounts, or is it possible that they are duplicates that didn't get merged out. Are the installments student loans? Them being near the limit doesn't hurt as much as having the revolving near the limit She has at least one collection, so she is on that score card. More won't hurt as much as the first. Plus, if they are all paid (I can't tell if the 11,5000 is still owed or not) and old, they won't hurt as much (I have a six year old one, keeps me on that scorecard, but I still have a 679). Also, being on this score card means the inquiries don't hurt as much, plus above a certain number, 18 probably looks like 14. How many total tradelines are there? My questions are just aimed at trying to figure out the score itself. Your point is well taken. A judgemental system would say this person may not be the best credit risk in the world. FI would have us believe that, if we were willing to accept a person with these odds of default as predicted by the score, they would be acceptable. (Maybe she is the one in whatever for this score level who would default). It is hard to stomach, especially when your gut says this person may not be the best. On the other hand, I don't intend to be mean to your client. Except for the 8 collection lines, her credit looks similar to mine (I happen to have a lot of student loans), and I have never not paid a debt. Kind of makes you scoff at the "reponsible use of credit" quotes you hear, huh. All you have to do is have a file that is simliar to other people in the past who didn't default. Doesn't mean they were responsible users of credit or not, huh?
|
| | Saturday, March 25, 2000 - 12:04 pm With regards to the missing inquiries on reports 2 and 3: I believe since Financial Datalink originally made the mistake of omitting one of the reports, they VOIDED those inquiries. As far as all the other speculations go, there is only ONE conclusion I can draw: Fair Isaac's Credit Scoring is a total FRAUD. A borrower does NOT pay as agreed on one day and then DEFAULT the very next day, as their flawed Credit Scoring software would make one think. I would love to see Fair Isaac's comments here. But as you can see for yourself, Fair Isaac does NOT disagree with my conclusions! They've got nothing to say.
|
| | Saturday, March 25, 2000 - 05:44 pm The reason the bureaus don't want you to have the FICO score is the lenders will have to give the public a better rate on their loan. It is all about money. My sister works for TRW she told me that she can pull what they call a inhouse report and it will reflect the score she said GMAC ask for a lower score on people with good credit so they can feather their nest with more MONEY.
|
| | Saturday, March 25, 2000 - 08:16 pm That is such bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, your sister can't work for TRW -- there is no TRW anymore. If she works for anyone she'd have to work for Experian. Next no lender has to have a poor score in order to charge you whatever they want. Prices are determined by this amazing thing called supply and demand and I suggest you take a basic economics course and try to master this concept. Thirdly credit bureaus don't get kickbacks when lenders make good money so they have no incentive to create scores that 'allow' lenders to charge extra. Fourth credit bureaus don't have the ability to alter the algorithm, that's controlled by Fair Isaac so they have no way to give you a worse score or a better one for that matter. Fifth you should have some sort of proof before you throw out accusations against GMAC and you should sign your name to your accusations too.
|
| | Saturday, March 25, 2000 - 09:01 pm Can you prove that GMAC does not give a kick back to the bureaus. When GMAC,FORD MOTOR CREDIT tell the bureaus to jump they say how high because the big 2 are paying the bureaus salary.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 04:29 am In further response to Kristi's report--could those collections possibly be medical-related? I wonder because I've underwritten a few mortgage loans in my day--the old-fashioned way--and it's quite common to find someone with otherwise impeccable credit who has an uninsured or underinsured medical problem and ends up with eight collections. There's one for the hospital, one for the doctor, one for the x-rays, one for the ambulance . . . . And even people with insurance find occasions where the insurer is late processing the bill, and hospitals especially are notorious for turning accounts over to collection faster than you can say "managed care." We always ignored medical collections as long as the borrower could document the situation and show that there was some repayment plan--either theirs or the insurer's--in place. One thing that has always made me uncomfortable with FICO scores is that I've never believed that the algorithm can tell the difference between a medical collection and a simple unpaid debt. I would be thrilled to think that it can. I've also never paid any attention to the relation of current to original balance on an installment debt. Looking to see how old it is, how many payments are still due, and whether there have been any lates tells me everything I need to know. I would be horrified to think that the FICO algorithm dings you for having installment loan balances close to the high. For heaven's sake, it takes years to pay off ten percent of a mortgage balance, or any other amortized loan, even when you're paying "as agreed." As far as Anonymous and his GMAC paranoia: my friend, anyone who wants to engage in predatory lending can do so on the basis of the tradelines in a credit report. You do not need scores, and you do not need to manipulate scores. For instance, if I wanted to screw people, I could say a collection is a collection, and I don't care if it's medical or not--you get the worst price if you have any. Why would GMAC pay a "kickback" to get what it can have anyway just by rewriting its underwriting policies?
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 06:05 am Christine I agree with you that this exposes a major flaw in the scoring process. It would appear that the models don't deal well with small files. You are absolutely right that it is absurd to believe a consumer is acceptable on wednesday, unacceptable on thursday, and acceptable again on friday. I have had similar things happen to me. Or maybe not similar you decide. I think in another post somewhere I mentioned that I was once turned down for a lower interest rate for having a 679 when their cutoff was a 680. I asked if the loan officer knew what the scores really meant, if she knew what the risk difference was between a 679 and a 680, and if she knew that score alone was an illegal reason for adverse action under regulation B of the ECOA. While I couldn't get Fair, Isaac to help me explain it to them, I only had to make them actually read the literature Experian had provided them to begin to understand. I think some of the blame has to fall on the rest of the industry for allowing scoring to have as much weight as it does. Whether the score is a good indicator of risk or not, any lender who doesn't take a second look at a file that comes within +/- 20ish points of their cutoff is doing themselves, their customers and pretty much all consmers a big disservice, for the exact reason you are so pissed about this one example. The way I got them to give me the better rate was to point out that a lower score just means that instead of 1 in 50 defaulting (or whatever th number s), maybe it means 1 in 20. I asked if they really thought that 1 point meant I was the one who would go to default. I pointed out that even those with low scores are still more likely to pay than to not, and that they should be looking for reasons to accept them, because it not only means a happier consumer, but they'll probably make money. What is the score that corresponds to 1 in 2 chance of default, anybody know? I'd be surprised if it got that low. To take the blame on the industry thing a step further, a lot of mortgage lenders feel their hands are tied becase investors generally won't buy if the score is below a certain point. And those investors are doing the exact same thing. They are more likely than not hurting themselves, not to mention the consumers. It's got to be cleaned up at all levels, from the top to the bottom (you are free to decide for yourself who is on top and who is on bottom) :)
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 07:08 am You draw the conclusion that the 'models don't deal well with small files.' How you arrived at that I have no idea. It seems far more likely that a person's credit score fluctuates quite a bit during the transition from one month to another. Your score may go up or down depending on a lot of factors. The age of your inquiries, collections and account information will all be a month older.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 08:40 am Sean It appears that the applicant has only 5 tradelines (do both bureaus have all 5) and the co applicant has only 1. I only make those speculations based on what I have seen. I have never seen scores fluctuate as much as these did without more obvious reasons, either from one day to the next or one month to the next (I am referring to the 24 point change specifically). The only thing I have seen come close is when a 90 day late became 6 months old (that bought nearly 20 points). There is no question that the aging changes the values. However, I simply don't see anything in these files that aging would affect that drastically. And at any rate, the first day to the second doesn't age the file, the second to the third does. I suspect the co-applicant's short time in file and one tradeline and lack of any delinquencies puts her on a scorecard that weights inquiries more heavily. My bet is that not many of the million files used to generate the score models had only one tradeline, so I suspect, statisitically, a one tradeline file score isn't as reliable as a score from a file with more tradelines. Since this application was done in 1997, prior to the increased deduping and buffer period upgrade to the models, I still think that what happened is that the first inquiry brought both scores down, so they were lower when pulled the second time. Even back then, auto and mortgage inquiries in a seven day period were treated as one, so the second and third inquiries did not change the score (you can see this in the co applicants third score). The increase the third day on the applicants score is for exactly the reasons you said. Their may be inquiries beyond the 90 days that have aged (say a 12 month old one), but more importantly, the derogatory is now a month older, and so is the Credit Union account. Plus, the credit union balance is lower. Of course, this being a merged file, we'll never know for sure what else is in there. For the most part, Sean, I think we are in agreement. Do you have data that suggests the smaller, newer files don't suffer greater swings. It would be very useful. I simply offer this explanation as a possibility why the single inquiry would have a 24 point impact on the Experian score. It didn't age from the first to the second report, and even if it did, the only thing I have ever seen that aging does to bring a score down (as opposed to increasing it)is if there has been no activity for 6 months or more. And that is not the case with the coapplicant, as it shows her Macy's account was last reported that month (7/97), and was current and did have a balance, so it was active. Seriously though, you are right, we are both guessing because it is a merged report. Without the raw bureau data, there is no way to know. And I think Christine is still right, would you agree, that nothing in this file suggests either applicant has done anything to change whether they are acceptable or not in this three day fiasco.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 09:50 am Whether you are an acceptable risk or not does not require that you 'do anything' The perfect example is the person with no credit file information at all. They are an unacceptable risk even though there's no indication they've used credit irresponsibly anytime in their life. And I do not agree that there has been no changeover from the first score to the second -- from the 30 to the 31st. Many aspects of scoring don't have to do with months, but with 30-day periods. Late 30, late 60, etc. If, for example, the person's profile had been updated with information from 7/1 that information would've been 30+ days old on 7/31 but only 29 days old on the 30th. I believe Kristi complained that her credit score had lost 100 points when she ran it in the beginning of the month as opposed to late the previous month. I doubt that one inquiry was what caused the entire loss of points. And I agree that the more credit profiles w/ scores a person looks at the better the 'feel' they get for what affects what. I tried your freecreditanalyzer link and it rated me as 668 but I know from eLoan.com that my score was 701 on 2/29/00.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 02:08 pm Sean, 701-668 is 33. Considering that the 24 ONE DAY point drop on my scanned reports is pure coincidence (I didn't survey thousands of scores and post the largest discrepancy,) I'd say that another 9 points in a month is very possible. So 668 sounds about right to me. And I really appreciate that you keep arguing my points: "It seems far more likely that a person's credit score fluctuates quite a bit during the transition from one month to another. Your score may go up or down depending on a lot of factors. The age of your inquiries, collections and account information will all be a month older." The fact that the Credit Scores fluctuate so much proves that they are incorrect. The reason why borrowers are NOT supposed to get their Scores in writing is because they could then take the reports with the HIGHER Scores and DEMAND the better rates and lower fees. DUH! I'd like to see the LENDERS' explanation for those dramatically changing Credit Scores. I would say that MANY MANY consumers are entitled to interest and fee REFUNDS because their Scores were artificially low the day the lender got their Scores.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 02:43 pm Richard, of course it would help to see the underlying reports to determine exactly what changed. Unfortunately, we CANNOT get those underlying reports. If anyone knows how somebody can get their Scores AND the underlying reports for 10 consecutive days, I'll be thrilled to pay $320 for a copy of those reports with the Scores, to be posted at bayhouse.com anonymously. I figure 8 x 3 x 10 for the bureau reports, but I have NO idea how to get the Scores. I already KNOW that Scores don't work, I would NEVER EVER rely on Credit Scores to lend my own money. I look at the reports, and discuss the reported data with the borrower. The reason why big companies like GMAC LOVE Scoring is that they get people into higher rates than they deserve. OF COURSE GMAC and others specifically request LOW SCORERS from the bureaus. Those are the people who are not financially educated and they don't know about Credit Scoring and disputing incorrect data. And if GMAC doesn't get enough Low Scorers in one run, all they have to do is run those same people's Scores AGAIN a few days later (at the end of the month?) and they'll get a bunch more Low Scorers. Why are companies *allowed* to make lending decisions based on Credit Scores? Consumers EFFECTIVELY lost the ability to shop for the best interest rates.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 02:43 pm If there's any conclusion to be drawn out of this information it's that you could gain 24 points on your score just by carefully choosing the day you apply for credit. Fluctuations in a person's credit score is no more proof that scores are incorrect than the fact that you get three different scores from three different credit repositories is proof. Scores can only be proven valid or invalid when compared against large and randomly selected groups of people over a 24-month period. I doubt lenders would have any explanation or knowledge of changing credit scores. They don't have the algorithms, they rarely bother to closely examine the raw data and they rarely inquire twice on the same borrower in two days. Finally I don't figure anyone's entitled to refunds of anything. A consumer comes in, sits down with a lender, the lender checks their credit and tells them what rate they're willing to offer. The consumer takes the rate either because it's the best rate they can find or they're just too lazy to shop the rate around. That's what the 'free market' system is all about -- freedom.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 03:56 pm Christine, I frequently find myself agreeing with you, although I must say that sometimes your passion on the subject seems to get beyond your good sense. You just said, "The reason why big companies like GMAC LOVE Scoring is that they get people into higher rates than they deserve. OF COURSE GMAC and others specifically request LOW SCORERS from the bureaus. Those are the people who are not financially educated and they don't know about Credit Scoring and disputing incorrect data." Do you really believe that all low scorers are uneducated victims of reporting errors? There are really no credit risks, just unsavvy consumers and data errors? It's one thing to be suspicious of mechanical scoring as a way to measure credit risk. It seems to me that it's another thing entirely to deny that there is "really" any such thing as credit risk. One way to look at "tiered pricing" is that it's a way for people who pay their debts on time to pay less than people who don't. I think there's good reason to argue that mechanical scoring isn't a good way to tell which is which, and that "preferred rates" can easily--maybe even inevitably--degenerate into predatory lending. But if you're telling me that "bad credit risk" is just a fictional concept made up by FICO, you're telling me news.
|
| | Sunday, March 26, 2000 - 09:25 pm Pudd'nhead Wilson, did I say "all?" And to Sean, I cannot comprehend why you would post ridiculous statements like "The consumer takes the rate either because it's the best rate they can find or they're just too lazy to shop the rate around." Consumers are too lazy? Or just too busy working to pay the bills? Do you think everybody should have a desk job like YOU? Where you get paid to do your personal business during business hours using business property like fax machines and computers with internet access to shop for low rates and reading up on how to get a decent Credit Score? Besides, I got declined myself for "too many inquiries." So HTF am I supposed to shop???? I didn't have a SINGLE late payment when I was declined because I had endured the agony of suing two companies who reported incorrect late payments. Even providing my own credit reports won't work anymore since everybody requires those oh so fluctuating Credit Scores and you have no idea what your Score will be from one day to the next. Sean, what would you say if somebody stole your wallet? If that person said, "Who says life is fair? You were too lazy to go to the gym, and now you got what you deserve. Tough luck!" Would you like that?
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 03:35 am There is no relationship to your above comments and someone stealing another person's wallet. While it's true that everyone has to work to pay bills, most of them work to pay off credit cards that they charged up to buy doodads. They just had to have that TV, VCR, new computer, trip to Maui, new car, new pair of sunglasses, etc. Most consumers can't distinguish between wants and needs and the solution is for them to come to that realization, not for Big Brother to intervene in every segment of their life to protect them from themselves. If someone wants to offer to loan out money to A-credit borrowers at 24% interest I say it's a free country. Laissez-faire. No one's forcing the person to borrow the money. That's the American way. God bless America.
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 07:42 am As a builder of complex models, I would like to toss in 2 cents on what the "problem" with these models seems to be. The people who use them do not understand them! This includes banks, bankers, credit bureaus and anyone who doesn't work for Fair Isaac. Why? Because the people who run the models are not telling. They're just saying that the model predicts well. Do they offer evidence to this effect? Nope... (that could give away secrets of their model) Does the model predict consistently? Depends on what you mean by consistently... by my standards as an Engineer, not really. Sure, various queries of the model seem to converge within 5%... but, the decision point is set, and they do not converge to one side or the other of the decision point, hence the model fails to predict consistently.... or the model is being used improperly (ie, it cannot work properly with an arbitrarily set decision point, the results and supporting data must be more thouroughly investagated by the person using the model's predictive capabilities). The problem is that the people who use the model are not informed of how it works, they are not told what has what weight and why. Personally, if someone hands me a model and says "it works... but I can't explain it to you" it goes on the junkpile. Also, in response To Puddn'head's comment about shopping the loan around, the system is set up to HURT people who shop the loan around by lowering the scores for multiple inquiries... so, the system is rigged against non-lazy consumers, or consumers using multiple loans. -Paul
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 08:12 am Sean, I'll explain this wallet thing to you: I was assuming the wallet had money in it. The relationship is that somebody steals your money. Get it? I think it's very telling that you did NOT answer how I'm supposed to shop for the best rates. Instead you made some very insulting comments about people's spending habits. Thanks for the insults, I really needed that. When you get robbed, just remember that nobody forced you to go outside or open the door. And I wished you'd leave your God out of credit discussions. My God certainly wouldn't bless any country or any person actively promoting deception, fraud and scams like Credit Scoring.
|
| | Monday, March 27, 2000 - 10:21 am How difficult is it to shop for rates? First of all you can go to LendingTree.com and they'll shop them for you. Secondly you know as well as I do that repeated mortgage or auto loan inquiries within a 2-week window don't harm you. Third if you're applying for a credit card hopefully you already have one credit card and you apply for credit cards whose rates and terms beat the ones you have. As for your robbing metaphor let me get this straight. If I learn of someone who's in financial difficulties, I run their credit, get their score and I offer to loan them $1,500 at 31.12% interest and they go for that rate then somehow I'm a thief?
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 09:35 am Sean, Somewhere I read that you are offering loans to people who post on this board (someone posted that you did this for her). Is this true? If so, maybe that's why you've posted so much? And about your comment of the 31% interest loan...I would say it is in the least taking advantage of someone, especially if you could offer them a 12% rate and don't do this. If you are the main poster on this board, it is in trouble.
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 12:45 pm Rhonda: It's true I've loaned out almost $5,500.00 to people I've met either directly or indirectly due to my posting here at interest rates from 17.9% to 100% APR. There's nothing wrong with this. Let's take this person's situation as an example. Although we don't know all the facts let's toss some numbers out and see what kind of interest rate this person is being charged. Let's speculate that he owes $600 on a $500 limit card at 18% interest (to make the math easy) and every month he also gets hit with a $9.63 a month over-limit fee. That means the total cost for him to be borrowing $600 is 37.26% That's nothing. If he was with Banc One his over-limit fee would be $25.00, which would put his cost-of-funds at 68.0% APR. Think those interest rates are harsh? They're not compared to Paycheck Advance Loan places. You write them a check post-dated two weeks for $300 and they give you $255. That's 458.82% nominal interest -- since it compounds every two weeks instead of every month the effective interest rate is even higher. This is perfectly legal (at least in the state of California). Think you've hit the roof? Not quite. What if you bank with a bank like Washington Mutual? Let's suppose you write a check for $50 more than you have in your bank account. Oh they'll gladly honor the check and hit you up with a fee for $18. They then provide you five business days to supply the necessary funds to bring your account to at least a $0 balance. So in essence they're charging you $18 for a 7-day loan of $50.00 that's 936% interest. But wait a minute, I'm the bad guy, right? When I find people who owe hundreds to paycheck advance loan companies and I refinance them from 458.82% down to 31.12% I'm taking advantage of them, is that it? If you think 12% interest is a reasonable rate to offer to people with bad credit I suggest you put your money where your mouth is. I can provide you with the names of plenty of people who'd love to borrow your money at those rates.
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 02:32 pm Sean, You are truly evil to take advantage of people this way, especially since this board is supposedly to help people out. Your morality talk is total crap. Sorry, I am completely stunned that under the guise of help you would do this to others on this board.
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 06:31 pm Sean is a total rip off don't give him any money.
|
| | Tuesday, March 28, 2000 - 06:46 pm Rhonda: I think that's a very intolerant and mean-spirited thing to say. Since when did you have the right to ram your morality down the throat of other people? So I'm evil, am I -- what's next are you going to start hurling Bible verses at us? This type of hate speech is totally uncalled for. The people I've helped are very happy about it. What goes on between two consenting adults is none of your business, unless you're one of them. What's next are you going to put cameras in everyone's bedroom to make sure no sodomy is going on anywhere in America? Bombed any abortion clinics lately?
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |