Subject: Scores
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:12:45 -0600
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Greg,
Thanks for your site. I find it very interesting that nobody wants to
say what is a valid score or what your score should be or even how to
improve your score. As info, I was recently told at a car dealership
that to qualify for the best lease rates through (name withheld by creditscoring.com) Leasing that
I need a FICO score of 695.
Now see scoring for insurance. Ed.
Subject: Creditscoring.com
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 23:23:41 -0500
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Mr. Fisher:
I must say, reading about your experience with the credit reporting
agencies was quite interesting.
I recently leased a new truck. When the salesperson pulled my creidt, he
let me see it. He kept saying that he wasn't supposed to and that
"consumers aren't allowed to see their Beacon Score." This comment sparked
my own curosity, and I began investigating.
I have several friends in the financing arena. Some of these people are
close personal friends...of all the people who I spoke to about this
mysterious "Beacon Score," nobody seemed to know where it came from. I
have heard some interesting stories, though. One which was quite
interesting was that they see people with nearly the same credit limits,
lengths of accounts, and income. None have a high number of inquiries, and
none have any collections and/or bankrupticies (sp.)...their score,
however, would not reflect their similarities...one may have a 600, another
may have a 550, and the last a 750.
This leads me to believe that perhaps the Beacon is just an arbitrary
number generated on the fly based NOT upon your creditworthiness, but
perhaps on the time of day and the day of the week, and perhaps even the
position of the moon. Maybe that's why you can't get an answer out of
anyone!!!!! :)
Seriously, though...
When I began hearing all these things, I decided to scope out the Internet
to see if someone, somewhere has done research (perhaps as a thesis or
something) on how the score is calculated. That's when I came across your
site.
My point of this letter?:?: To thank you on providing such an immense
number of manhours researching the subject, and perhaps enlightning the
public on how their personal information is being sold to others, without
being openly disclosed to themselves. Additionally, I would like to
express my converse opinion of the gentleman who was "sorry" that you
decided to take on this "mission."
The entire concept is truly fustrating, and I'd like you to know that you
are not alone in feeling the annoyance of the credit reporting companies'
abuse of personal information.
Thanks again for a very infomative and eye-opening site.
Have a wonderful day, and best of luck!
Cordially,
Daytona Beach, Florida
PS...sorry I didn't use PROPRIETORY in my letter :)
Subject: scoring
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:47:51 EST
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Who in the hell do they think they are, its time to start a new credit company
we need to put them out of business, and fast !!!
Subject: credit scoring
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 06:37:09 -0500
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Dear Mr. Fisher,
I have spent a great deal of time reviewing your site and wish to applaud you on your efforts.
I would also like to thank you for the thorough education that I received as a result of your work.
I plan on making many people aware of your site, if there is anything else I can do to help, please let me know.
Subject: Beacon Scores
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:18:01 EST
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Dear Mr. Fisher:
My husband and I have been trying to buy a home for the past year through a
mortgage company who uses the Beacon credit scores. We had some problems in
the past, but are only 26 and 27 years old and believe that all of our credit
mistakes occurred over 7 years ago. We were both in college. Since our
credit has been clean for the past 7 years and we have never had a bankruptcy,
we would really like to know the scoring criteria for Beacon as well. We
would like to know what else we can do to improve our score. Please let us
know if you ever get a straight answer! Although I'm sure it was frustrating,
we admire your dedication and were entertained by your persistence and humor
dealing with the situation. Good luck.
|
Dear Greg,
I learned of your web site after I did a search for "beacon score" on the www. To my amazement my search yeilded only 2 hits, yours and
that of Landmark Mortgage at http://www.greatloans.com/gsscore.htm.
Interestingly, the Landmark page begins with a full paragraph explaining
that the FairIssac trademark name had to be removed from their website
due to FairIssac's attorneys requests/demands relating to trademark
infringement. Hmm....
So, i write you mainly to say that i am amazed that the term
"beacon score", which is fairly well known to many folks who try to
"keep their finger on the pulse" of their credit history, draws only two
hits on the webcrawler search engine. But hey, after reading your web
page, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. What a damned shame that we've
been conditioned to expect less as consumers.
Regards,
[name withheld by request]
Subject: I work for a major credit reporting agency.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:55:01 EST
From: [name withheld by creditscoring.com author]
To: gfisher@erinet.com
My first reaction was to say, "If you are driving a ' 78 Cadillac, you must have poor credit. Why else would you be so fired-up about a credit rating? People who pay their bills never seem to find time to worry about a credit
score. What a coincidence."
However, that's not fair. I know you desire an official explanation from the major repositories (that's what we call ourselves), and you probably want your score and some explanation of what it is relative to other scores, etc.
Let me give you the spin on why scores are "protected": Scores are protected because they are down-right confusing. Also, a score is NOT part of a credit report. It is a product sold with a credit report.
Somebody should be up front with you and reply in this manner:
Mr. Fisher,
Although I cannot speak for all repositories, I can pass on our feelings here
at XYZ.
We feel consumers are idiots. There is no law that says we must feel
otherwise. Since scores do not have to be disclosed, we choose not to
disclose them. There is no financial gain in disclosing your score to you.
Actually, there is a penalty. The penalty is discussing it with hundreds of
thousands of people on our toll-free number and using our time and money to do
it.
Fact is, Mr. Fisher, the very companies of which you are a customer also feel
that you are a world-class idiot. Not just you, per say, but all their
customers. A good example is a Credit Card company. They do nothing out of
respect for you. If they do anything for you, it is for your cash, or to
comply with a law. They offer a plethora of services which net no immediate
gain, but ensure you will stick around with them and spend more money.
Well, why beat around the bush? We choose not to deal with you or discuss
scores because we are driven by profit. Taking time to deal with you
decreases our profits - and there isn't a thing wrong with protecting our
profits. Capitalism, Mr. Fisher, is not a dirty word.
If you somehow convince enough people to initiate a bill that forces companies
to disclose scores and to discuss them, chances are it will all be very
entertaining. I guess we'll have to do it. I imagine it will sound something
like this: "Oh, you want to increase your Empirica score? Jump in your
friggin' time machine and go back to 1995 and pay the student loan for which
you never got a deferrment." That is the sort of conversation that will take
place after credit bureaus are forced to discuss scores.
Now, we understand that some customers are turned down by banks for credit
because of things like "Too many revolving accounts". [expletive delted], it's their
money, if they don't want to lend it to someone dumb enough to walk around
with three credit cards, that's there perogative.
You, Mr. Fisher, are no customer of ours; therefore, we laugh at you. " Nyahh
Nyahh ! ".
Thanks.
XYZ Credit Bureau.
Subject: FICO
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 14:01:14 EST
From: CUGNO@aol.com
To: gfisher@erinet.com
It did not take them "... 35 years to get it right ...." as you've suggested. It's NOT new, it's just new to YOU and residential real estate first mortgage type lenders. It's been common at banks and finance companies, to my own direct and personal knowledge, since 1966. I remember when it was installed at Beneficial, one year Before Credit Data Corporation (CDC- later TRW now experian) was even born!
I have not studied your site, it looks quite thorough, HOWEVER I can tell you, from the trenches as an operator, over time the Fair/Isaac kids stuff works!
Peter Samuel Cugno
Subject: Re: FICO
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 05:46:30 -0500
From: Greg Fisher
To: CUGNO@aol.com
References: 1
Actually, here's what the web site says. I'll use a technique we call "cut and paste." You should learn it.
"... Whenever somebody writes something about them concerning the recently adopted practice in mortgage banking of using credit scores-- because they have hardly anything to say about how scoring works-- they typically use the filler: Fair, Isaac "pioneered credit scoring" (see inset), "scoring is nothing new," and something about the company being in the game for years, "since 1956... "
That only means it took them 35 years to convince the industry to use scoring."
See? The text doesn't say what you quoted.
A suggestion: stay out of the news business. People don't like misquotes. And they'll sue you. Perhaps, however, it is just a typo. Indeed, there are three other errors in your message.
By the way, I have to hand it to: you are one prolific writer. On the page http://nmnews.fgray.com/cgi-bin/thread.pl/message/6 a quarter of the entries are yours.
Here's one:
"Are you commenting on the wisdom of "banks", sounds like you are -- and you're right! Four inquiries in a one week period can not effect a FICO 40 points. There were other factors in her file, which also changed during that period. Call FairIsaac in Northern California, they'll explain the degree to which inquiries effect scores
-- the answer is "very little," by the way... "
By gosheroonie, Samuel Peter Cugno, how about YOU filling us in? Tell us your definition of "very little." How many could it have dropped the score? Give us a number. 39? 30? 20? 10? 5? 1? Make a stand and stop with the generalities. Anybody can do what you do.
Let's see if you can answer the same simple question posed to all levels at the national credit reporting agencies, from customer service, to members of the boards: How can I tell what is the right number of bank revolving accounts?
We have been waiting for the answer for 18 months. We're just regular consumers who want an answer to a simple question. If the CRAs can't answer it, what in the world is the consumer supposed to do with those four reasons that come with a score?
Here is another good one: May I have my score, please?
Fair, Isaac needs believers like you: people with blind faith so deep and old, they've lost their power of rational, independent thought.
Subject: Re: FICO
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:48:21 EST
From: CUGNO@aol.com
To: gfisher@erinet.com
I like this cut and paste thing, that's real nice. You sound very much like a Harvard Debate Team Leader ... I on the other hand, seem to possess "blind faith so deep and old" ... that I've ..."lost (all of my) their power of
rational, independent thought.
The inquiry number happens to be negative 13 score points, if 7 inquiries happen within a 10 day period. That's what they told me, when I asked hem that last year. As far as credit cards go, 5 is the right number, owing 50%
of the high credit limits on all. BUT, I'm sure your research has already turned up those numbers ... goof luck in your fight for full disclosure.
I promise I won't ever quote you again, for trembling fear of being sued.
Subject: credit scoring
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:40:39 -0700 (MST)
From: [name withheld by creditscoring.com author]
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Greg:
In the process of buying my first home, I received a copy of my credit report. At the bottom was the credit score, with no context or explanation. A quick web search led me to your site, which is most informative, and answered many of the questions I had.
I was impressed by your persistence in dealing with the CRAs, yet not too surprised by their lack of cooperation.
However, another approach to solving the problem comes to mind. Why not try to "reverse-engineer" the scoring algorithm? That is, first figure out what the "30 or so" factors that go into the score are. Then collect as many credit scores and their corresponding factors from as many people as possible? I bet lots of people would volunteer to give you an anonymous version of the credit score & associated factors. If you had enough of these, it should be possible to answer your questions, like "how many credit cards is the right number".
A second approach to your answering your specific question also occurred to me. I don't know about you, but I get about one (dinner-time) phone-solicitation for a credit card a week. My new excuse to these requests will be "I'd like to get your credit card, but that would lower my credit score, by having too many credit cards, or too many new credit cards". If enough people did this, I think that the credit card companies would push back on the CRAs, or at least make this information public.
Thoughts?
Subject: Re: credit scoring
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 00:25:35 -0400
From: Greg Fisher
From: [name withheld by creditscoring.com author]
References: 1
Catch-22. We could probably come close enough to make an educated guess, but if someone took the time to reverse-engineer the reports into scores, the national CRAs could negate the awesome task by releasing (on their own volition, or by being compelled by the law) the scores. Also, the statistical randomness may be invalid because only volunteers would be submitting their reports -- I can hear the experts complaining now.
We need a fourth bureau-- like Fox, the fourth network.
A low-tech approach is probably the answer -- we could have a little fun with it, maybe offering a cash award to the person submitting the highest score and their explanation of their savvy. That, of course, will raise its own debate: can a score based on conscious activity be valid? Sounds Orwellian, but the bean-counters would probably prefer us to be less aware of their existence. Then again, the cat's out of the bag, now, anyway. Then again, maybe their regression analysis is smart enough to take that into account ("Your score is too high-- based on your past, you appear to be gunning for it, now. Lose 100."). Then again, we don't know because they're not talking. I'm thinking a prize of a thousand bucks.
Didn't Robert McNamara's quant jocks uses quantatative methods to run the Vietnam war?
Your idea on telemarketing is a one-two punch that should shut them up quickly. By the way, telemarketers have to identify themselves with an address or telephone number. For the low-down on winning legitimate cash awards from them if they don't follow the law when they call, visit Consumer.net. Also, don't miss Phil Rice's page on a well-fought layman's lawsuit. The decision is pending. Like credit scoring, it's real, high drama.
Subject: Credit Scoring
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:53:50 -0700
From: [name withheld by creditscoring.com author]
To: gfisher@erinet.com
Greg:
Credit scoring was designed for "risk assessment", however in practicality it has become a "speed & weed" tool with "zero tolerance" for rectification and/or explanation for the unfortunate person whom gets snared. The reason for the disparity is quite simple the market will not tolerate "exceptions" and the FOR PROFIT CRA's have a disincentive to "real-time" correct/expunge ones' report. In other words, there is NO time to repair the damage and reverse an computer/underwriters adverse decision. Call me or Email me to discuss further.
president of mortgage bank and 15 year mortgage banking industry veteran
Subject: Re: Credit Scoring
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:10:03 -0400
From: Greg Fisher
To: [name withheld by creditscoring.com author]
References: 1
I agree accuracy is a major issue-- but it was purposely ignored by creditscoring.com to deal, without tangents, with the issue of non-disclosure of scores to consumers. Accuracy is a question of degree, where disclosure is a yes/no argument that can actually be resolved-- with either disclosure or refusal to disclose.
Unless we consider national level credit reporting agencies to be incompetent now (so there is a chance they could become competent and remedy the problem with the same amount of revenue), greater accuracy and real-time correction will likely result in higher costs.
What do you think the CRAs should do to correct the accuracy problem? Other than those allowed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, should there be negative consequences for creditors who provide incorrect data to CRAs, or for CRAs who provide incorrect data (not caused by creditors) to end users?
Thanks for writing. How did you hear about the site?
|
| | | |