Talk:Credit score in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  Quality: B-Class
 Mid  Importance: Mid
 

Removed Link to Annual Credit Report[edit]

This is a link to a for profit company, yet the link makes it sound like it's the sole government sponsored link to get a copy of your credit reports. There are lots of free ways to do this. The fact the site advertises itself as "the offical" is spam. Who says it's offical?. Not the US government 99.190.231.241 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Jean Bell

Yes it does. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/02/facta.shtm someone who knows the wikipedia syntax please put that link back. =) 65.26.29.42 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) oh, found a better link http://www.ftc.gov/freereports 65.26.29.42 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pages Redirected Incorrectly?[edit]

This topic appears to have been split into a seperate page from the main Credit Score article incorrectly, the discussion link at the top of that page redirects here, which is the wrong discussion, and I think either the whole article should redirect or the talk page should be fixed. Can anyone provide a policy or advice regarding this? SamDN (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was the original "Credit score" article. But because it only discussed the United States, it was renamed "Credit score (United States)" on 25 January 2006 and a new global "Credit score" article was created for several countries, including the US. For some strange reason, the global Talk:Credit score redirects to this US specific Talk:Credit score (United States). Although it is easy to remove the redirect, before I do so I'm first asking if any other editor knows why it is redirected here or is that redirect an artifact of the split? — Joe Kress (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FICO name updates, article citations, possible bias[edit]

I plan to update this article, as I have done with the Fair Isaac (now FICO) article, to make sure all references to Fair Isaac are now FICO per the recent brand name change. Also, I plan to research the article citations as the tags request, and update the general language to clarify how exactly the different scoring systems are related to each other. There seems to be some bias in the doctoring section of Criticisms and Controversies - the Business Week article is the only source for this entire section. Can anyone help find other sources to either support this viewpoint as mainstream, or show opposing viewpoints? Kat Malone (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the above items, and will also now research and update the "Makeup of a Credit Score" section, since it lacks most citations and the information is very unclear.Kat Malone (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem of the Fico model is that there is no independant veirification of compliance with their stated critieria for setting scores. The Federal Reserve, the banks, Credit reporting Agencies are not independant 3rd parties. The information collected, maintained and inputed into the credit reporting model is not necessarily availble or complianct with the stated model as presented in this article. For example, the ranking of a single late payment represents what exactly to ones score?

Finally there has been a fundamental change in the FICO scoring model in 2009 which represented a signifigant shift in scores for most people. (estimated as 20 points, but more likely in the 100 point range):

"Finer shadings of “good”, “fair” and “bad” credit

One of the biggest differences will be the way that FICO recognizes different levels of consumer habits. For instance, right now if you are late for a payment — you are late. And your credit score falls indiscriminately. The new FICO credit score will sense finer shadings, looking at how often you are late with your payment. A single late payment will not be as damaging to your credit score as it has been in the past.

Because of new technology, and because of how well consumer habits are tracked, the FICO credit score is possible. The downside is that consumer habits (including what you spend your money on) can also be incorporated into your credit score.

Starting in January 2009, you can expect to see changes to your credit score. Kiplinger reports that a large number of consumers (between 40% and 50%) are likely to see a shift of around 20 points in the credit score — either up or down. So keep an eye out."

http://credit101.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/fico-to-update-credit-scores-in-2009/

The Real problem with Credit and credit scoring is the lack of any independant opinions on the process. There are millions of pages on "why" you should buy and monitor your credit history .... only a handful on how it actually operates. This post is a particular example of positive spin by the credit industry with nonsense like the relaitonship between availablilty of credit to credit scoring. A good credit score will deteriorate quickly with a divorce, disability or job loss that has nothing to do with this models ability to predict any of the above. Since these are the leading causes of bad debt, the credit scoring model is basically an opaque system used to deny portions of the population credit based on discriminatory medelling. the best par is that we have little on no idea what actual information theyt use!

user: snetherc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.213.249 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-Traditional Uses of Credit Scores[edit]

"Some employers, especially financial institutions, will request permission from job applicants to run a credit check as part of their application process. This credit information can be used as an indicator of a person's level of financial responsibility. Note that job applicants have certain rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and are not required to consent to a credit check."

This sentence is probably better placed under Credit History rather than here.It is technically correct. However,while credit reports are used for employment purposes, scores are not. Vaheterdu (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

politicing in the introduction[edit]

  • Because a score does not consider race, sex or ethnicity, it is generally considered to be the most fair and objective underwriting tool available to lenders. The Federal Reserve Board did a study that noted scores have increased the availability of credit and reduced the cost of credit. Scores have also proven to be very predictive in assessing risk.

I really question the presence of statements like this in the introduction. The entire article has the tone of something from a trade publication rather than an encyclopedia. The series of statements I've highlighted don't explain "what", they promote the goodness of credit scores. Articles should not be determining what tool is the "most fair and objective". They should be explaining what the tool is. 70.234.244.169 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

wow theres no credit score scale here[edit]

e.g 720-x = good 400-600 = poor etc etc where is this information how could it not be in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

CE Score[edit]

The following comment was moved from User talk:Joe Kress#CE Score. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


My name is Ed DeShields and I am the creator and hold the intellectual property rights of the CE Score. I notice that you are editing this page and instead of creating a tit-for-tat Wiki campaign I'd like you to consider the facts about how you edit the CE Score section.

I made an attempt to correct the record which you immediately reverted to your view of the CE Score. Your instance is incorrect.

Here is your copy and my comments to which I trust you will consider in your correction or future edits:

You say: "Another credit consumer score is published by "Community Empower" and "Quizzle" as the CE Score. The score reported by these agencies is NOT an actual FICO score, but an approximation based on proprietary algorithms.[citation needed]. This score is sold to lenders but free to consumers."

First, the CE Score is published by CE Analytics and is licensed to various entities including "Community Empower" and "Quizzle" and other licensees.

Second, the CE score, should be capitalized as, "CE Score".

Third, and completely untrue is that "The score reported by these agencies is NOT an actual FICO score, but an approximation based on proprietary algorithms." Mr Kress, the CE Score is not an approximation of the FICO score and is not to be compared. The CE Score, like all scores are based on proprietary algorithms. Your slant sounds and like you are specifically bias towards the FICO brand and is a disservice to the reader. You even emphasize it's "NOT" a FICO as if to say is it invalid. This is derogatory -- must like the FAKO moniker. There is no meaningful purpose to judge, as to dismiss, any score including the CE Score.

Finally, the score is both sold and by lenders, investment banks and other financial institutions. Note the distinction is that not all financial institutions are lenders. Also, notable is that it is the uniquely and always free to the consumer market (I believe to be an important advocate for the consumer).

I notice you struck the mention of the publisher, CE Analytics. If you mention Fair Issac as FICO's publisher then it should be appropriate to mention CE Analytics or visa-versa you must omit Fair Issac from the article it would seem to me.

Further you struck my citation as fluff. I am the most credible source on the subject yet you removed by citation describing the score and its applications. The innovation in the CE Score makes it especially important because it is designed to assess risk on pools of loans -- an innovation that FICO admits publicly it doesn't address.

So, as an editor you are now armed with the facts and I urge you to improve the article if you wish, or stand aside and I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edeshields (talkcontribs) 01:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this information which I will consider when I reword CE Score. I removed your rewrite because you as the creator of CE Score have an inherent conflict of interest and thus Wikipedia does not allow you to edit this section except with the consensus of other editors (discuss here instead). Only a short section on the CE Score can be included because of its low usage relative to other scores (greater usage in the future will warrant a larger section). This conforms to the Wikipedia policy on undue weight.
I do not understand some of your comments: "the score is both sold and by lenders, investment banks and other financial institutions." If the score is sold by lenders, investment banks and other financial institutions, who do they sell it to? It can't be to the consumer because you explicitly state "always free to the consumer market". This contradicts your own statement when you reworded the article's CE Score section to state "The CE Score ... are sold to ... consumers ...". Assuming that you or your licensees do not sell the score to consumers (except when consumers request it more frequently than every six months), do you sell the score to lenders who then lend money to consumers to buy houses backed by mortgages? It seems that your main market is "investment banks, private equity firms and mortgage portfolio managers" because it is "designed to assess risk on pools of loans". — Joe Kress (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me help you understand. The CE Score has a market share about equal to the Vantage Score in the consumer market so it is fair that it exceeds the Undue Weight thinking. It is not a approximation of FICO, but a score that uses its own proprietary algothrims. It is among the newest score models (proven by millions of distributions) on the market. The CE Score is (always) free to consumer through licensee sites. Our average customer accesses their free score about four times per year. As for the institutional/lender channel, the CE Score is sold to lenders and investment banks in the secondary mortgage markets and buyers of mortgage pools use our score to assess the risk on a pool of loans (usually underwritten using the FICO). So it's a bank to bank reassessment risk score so to speak for this channel (a super-score of sorts). They don't resell the score to consumers but sell the loans, based on CE Score categories, to other institutional investors who would not buy them if not properly risk measured. FICO's president (Mr. Green) is on-record stating FICO is not particularly effective at this stage in the life of the mortgage. The CE Score is.

Finally, I'm not trying to promote anything but only to correct the record for the truth. I actually limited my comments to two simple sentences. These sentences then got removed and all mention of this important part of the scoring industry was eliminated. Sad.

What I recommend you do is to change the category to the "FICO Credit Score" because there is no other mention of any other industry player (allowed?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edeshields (talkcontribs) 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression that a person who never uses credit will have a N/A or bad credit score. Is this true? Can the criticism explain this?[edit]

http://a.wholelottanothing.org/2011/08/credit-scores-are-bullshit.html

Credit has always looked like a suckers game to me. I was informed via mail that when I tried to get satellite television setup for my grandfather (because the cable company is robbing him) who was unwilling to give the company his financial information that my credit score wasn't good enough for a the 20~30$ monthly bill. I was told by the receptionist that this practice has been going on for only a few years, and it was the first time I encountered it. I do not know if it is the fact that I have never been in debt, or that my bank account is not super active, that my credit score is low or non-existent. Seems like discrimination based on credit scores should be illegal; as it presumes that a person is willing to put themselves in debt. Other sites say take out loans just for the hell of it. I don't think self respecting people would be willing to abide by such nonsense (at any rate. The television could not be setup for trees in the area. The cable company's monopoly holds sway.)

Yes this is not a forum, but neither are people non-social creatures. --184.21.215.174 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this is not a forum, but I'd like, just like you, to have more information as a French citizen, on how the credit system works in the US. I don't understand how deep the impact of the credit score is. Is it a requirement in the US ? We hear so many stories of people unable to get anything without a good FICO score that I wonder if it's not part of the US way of life. I have researched a lot about credit (because it doesn't exist in my country in that extent) and I feel like this article misses the point and doesn't provide enough information as to the real impact and reach of the system. But well I wonder if one can do such an analysis without bias. I know I couldn't so maybe it's okay to stay minimalist...2A01:E34:EC03:EE40:40AF:B372:EBF3:7286 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Experian FICO score from myFICO.com[edit]

Consumers can get their generic Experian FICO score from myfico.com in 2013 by first time since 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.181.217 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that is independent of Experian and FICO, relevant to this article's topic, if you think it deserves mention in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)