Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 02:18 pm  From Fair Isaac's fax Credit bureau score questions and answers: "Since the law requires a record of all inquiries into the file to be kept, inquiries cannot be removed from the credit report." Does anyone know which law that is? Why is there a law requiring that people who had their credit report accessed WITHOUT permission pay higher rates or be declined for credit and home loans? I have never been able to get an inquiry removed or re-classified, the CRAs told me to contact the creditors.
|
| | Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 05:49 pm This issue infuriates me. Sure, let them keep a record of all inquiries cause I'd like to see who views my report. But there's NO REASON to show them to others and lower my score. On my report 2 collection companies have been nosing around in my file. I do not have any debt with those companies and they have nothing to report on me. But they keep showing up as inquiries. I filed an online complaint with the FTC, not sure if it will do any good. I also wrote to the companies and told them they do not have my permission to access my file. Oddly, one of them accessed my report on 11/23/99 and again on 11/24/00. So I wonder if they have some automated system that gets into my file the same time each year? Is there anyone else I can file a complaint with? Who enforces the law that prevents people from accessing credit files "unlawfully?" Who enforces the FDCPA? And why is it that when we complain to the CRA about unauthorized inquiries they do nothing and tell us to contact the creditor? The CRA should have some responsibility for allowing the unauthorized company from viewing the files. They don't even care about these unauthorized inquiries so if they keep allowing them then there's nothing we can do about it with the creditor. I'm going to research this more and find out who else to complain to. Here's the text of my complaint to the FTC: On 11/24/00 OSI Collection Services accessed my Equfax and Experian credit files without my authorization and without any permissible purpose. The inquiry is listed as a "Collection Purpose." I do not have a debt in collection with this company. This company does not and has never had authorization from me to view my credit report. Therefore I believe they have viewed my file for fraudulent purposes. This is a violation of my privacy and is also lowering my credit score.
|
| | Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 07:25 pm Right on and thank you! This is what I like to read here  Feel free to repost your complaint at Legal as it might encourage others. Also, if you make a topic with a SUBJECT like "FTC complaint against OSI Collection for unauthorized credit inquiries" it's much more likely that other people find it. Hopefully others will be encouraged to also file complaints, and if enough people complain, the FTC might actually do something. There are a couple of other things you can do. Small claims is one, unless you currently already have the 0% APR cards. Next time you get declined for the lowest rate, you have damages you can sue for. I really regret that I didn't sue AT&T when they ran my report w/o authorization. Nobody enforces anything, it's really up to us to enforce the law, in Court. Of course nobody wants to go to court, and that's why they can get away with it. You can also try your State, I think they regulate collection agencies or you can try complaining with the State where OSI Collection is licensed. My recent "success" in getting actual investigation #s with the FTC and the OCC might have to do with the fact that I posted everything here and I included the URLs in the complaints. Maybe it was just my bitchy attitude, who knows. Something worked. Inquiries are definitely one of the top 5 problems with FICO credit scoring.
|
| | Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 07:38 pm One of the companies is located in my state, Florida. The other is in Texas. I looked up the web sites for the AG's office in both states and they said to first try and resolve the issue with the business, which I did by sending out letters. If I don't get a response from those companies within a couple of weeks I'm going to file a formal complaint with the AG's. I doubt I'll hear anything from those companies so at least I'll have my supporting documentation which is what I need for the complaints. I have to follow through with this or else those inquiries will show up again this year. I am willing to sue in small claims if my formal complaints don't get me anywhere. I don't know how much of an impact those inquiries are causing me right now because I have a few other things on my report that would prevent me from getting the prime credit card rates. But soon a lot of those things will come off my report and eventually I will have a good record and those collection inquiries will cause harm. I guess my damages could be that it causes embarrassment and defamation of character for other creditors to see that. The main thing that irritates me is that it is an invasion of my privacy and is ILLEGAL. I will try to add these posts to the legal section here on the forum.
|
| | Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 09:57 pm Those inquiries actually hurt you MORE when you have low scores already. If your score is 750, and you lose 30 or 40 points, it's not a big deal at all. When you're below 700 already it really makes a difference. Nobody can say how many points are deducted per inquiry. If you have MANY inquiries, one more won't make a difference. I was just looking at the FCRA http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#604 and I think they should scrap the entire section. I can't even comprehend what they're saying. It goes on and on. Instead of listing every permissible purpose, they should list NOT permissible purposes. It would be shorter. There are also a number of FTC opinion letters at on this subject linked at http://www.bayhouse.com/discus/messages/123/524.html?956547094 Those are much easier to read. It could be that you had some old debts that were sold to the collection agencies. I would fax a quick note or call to find out. Of course if you DO owe them money, they might start collecting. Watch your phone #, 800#s collect every caller's number. It's been mentioned that a collection agency could force you to pay by running your credit once a week if they aren't coded as A/R (account review.) "Pay up or we'll ruin your credit scores" I don't know if there's anything in the FCRA on the coding of inquiries.
|
| | Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 10:30 pm Yes, I think they were some really old debts, way past the 7 year mark now. One of them (maybe both) I recall disputing on my reports a long time ago and they had no record so they had to delete. It's past the 7 year mark now anyway, but collectors are notorious for running the credit to keep marking a file past the 7 year mark. I found a link on another site that had the text from a lawsuit and something about a bill in the works to prevent collectors from doing this. Hopefully it will pass. Even though I think it's illegal since they actually have NO record of an account for me. I actually hope they do respond to my letters with a letter informing me of the amount they think I owe so that I can dispute it to them in writing and have them leave me alone once and for all. I'll tell them to prove the debt or stop all collection activities.
|
| | Thursday, February 01, 2001 - 11:28 am I found a link on another site that had the text from a lawsuit and something about a bill in the works to prevent collectors from doing this. Could you post that link? I'd like to see anything having to do with new credit legislation.
|
| | Thursday, February 01, 2001 - 01:42 pm Here's the link that contains info about the lawsuit. I'm not sure how old the suit is or if it's still in the courts. Scroll down to the part that says "What about Inquiries?" and there is a paragraph and a section from the lawsuit, with a link to the complete brief. http://members.aol.com/victcrdrpt/ Also of interest on the site is the section at the bottom titled "From the Vaults" I'm not sure where I read about the possible bill because I was surfing all over the internet last night but I know I read it somewhere. We'll just have to take it with a grain of salt until I can find it again. There may be something about it on the above link but I didn't have much time to dig right now. I'd like to hear your opinion on that site and it's contents.
|
| | Thursday, February 01, 2001 - 02:08 pm BTW, I've been reading on tons of sites (not forums) that the law states that only AUTHORIZED inquiries must show on the report. I'm sure we could probably find the text in the FCRA. They all say that it's best to dispute the inquiry with both the creditor and the CRA and they are SUPPOSED to remove them. They all advised filing formal complaints with the regulatory agencies or to sue. Apperently the law states that it's punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. But I doubt that gets enforced. In my case, is there a regulatory agency for debt collectors? (Other than the FTC??)
|
| | Thursday, February 01, 2001 - 03:04 pm That's a great site, and I used to link to VCR.org on several pages, just added them to "Links" at the forum. They have the domain VCR.org, but it looks like most pages are still redirected to AOL. I recently got Dave Vest's permission to republish their Changes we propose, just haven't gotten to it yet. Credit Scoring has the paragraph on inquiries and a lot of very interesting info. The brief was for Bill Sheehan, back in 98, I don't think it had to do with credit reporting or scoring directly. For some laughs, check Avenging Angel and don't miss the link to "hiring a collection manager." VCR.org has been around for years, and it's one of the few sites I enjoy reading. It's a true "non profit" although not organized as such.
|
| | Friday, February 02, 2001 - 06:58 am I originally got to this site from VCR.org months ago. They seem to get better listings from the search engines than this site does.
|
| | Friday, February 02, 2001 - 09:07 am Yeah, bigger isn't always better.
|
| | Monday, February 05, 2001 - 04:35 am Yeah, bigger isn't always better. It's reassuring when a WOMAN says that ... hahaha
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 12:43 am i posted a pretty long email to vcr hoping to garner more support for my impending legal action against unfair isaac, possibly the cra's [get the discriminatory information off my report, ie the credit score and i'll be able to get mortgages ince again]-- it is evident that credit scoring is not doing either what it claims to do for those who ascribe to it as the Word of God, such as the fed (at least for the moment), and a vast majority of lenders. my problems have arisen more from the fed rule that i must have a minimum score to get a mortgage; even when the lender is most willing to underwrite it, they cannot because a FICO score under 680 de facto brands the note unsalebale on the secondary markets by federal mandate-- unfair isaac forgot to factor in things like equity positions and how a borrower's overall credit profile will change if the loan in question should be allowed to close. in the past, my lenders have required me to eliminate consumer debt as a condition for granting a mortgage-- this i do anyway, as most of my consumer debt is generated in the months following purchase of a property requiring alot of renovation. is it not good business sense to take money at rates between 0-5% for 6 months to rehab a building if you plan to just pay it all back when the project is finished by refinancing? it sounds good to me, and has always worked until FICO scoring comes along and changes all the rules. my lenders have had as much of this is i have, and i already have in hand a denial letter from wells fargo indicating that my credit scores are the one and only reason why they would not refinance my primary residence, in spite of over $200,000 in equity and a credit history without one single late payment ever. personal business relationships do develop in this industry, as the 100% LTV nodoc loan that my friendly neighborhood banker wrote me in june 1999 so i could close on a purchase that had already been approved by the loan officer, only to be spit back by the head underwriter in chicago because changes in the guidelines for the (best rate) program crossed in the mail with new rules from the fed, raising the minimum middle FICO score from 640 to 680, sending me to a non-ficobound lender who jacked the interest rate 5/8% and asked for additional down payment money over and above the $110,000 in cash i was already bringing to the table. after i finished the renovation on the property, i tried to refinance it, as i had told my banker i would plan to repay him by year's end, not to mention his 11% interest rate. in december 1999, this one appraised for $740,000, and i had a mortgage of $453,000. guess why i couldn't get a conventional loan on it?, and it wasn't because i didn't pay my bills or didn't have enough equity. the lender holding the note rewrote it-- the interest rate went up again, along with me chowing down another round of associated closing costs-- lawyer, title insurance, appraisal, mortgage broker, all those wonderful little fratzel add-ons that make doing a loan of this size cost $8000, knowing all along that at some point i'll have to do it again, or sell, to get any more of the over $215,000 equity still sitting there after the refinance was done. i condoed it in august, 2000 and sold one of the units off. this was not my intention when i went into the property, as that unit would today be producing a very nice cash flow had i been able to hold on. i still own the smaller unit in that building, and renting it at about break-eve. the best i could get from the lender was 8.625% when i sold the other unit. without FICO, that rate would now be about 7%. as i have stated many times on this newsgroup, i have tens of thousands of dollars in actual damages i can prove in court, with support from my mortgage brokers (who haven't been making much money from me lately because my loans always get ficofuct when submitted for underwriting), and a veritable raft of supporting documentation. again i am asking for fellow fico victims to summarize the facts of your situations, and to consider the possibility of helping to assemble and join in a class action to fight this ridiculous things, and perhaps form the basis by which it can be taken down. we all know that no computer model can give equitable consideration to even the majority of applicants for credit, and we're talking about people's homes here, livelihoods for someone like me who works in the real estate industry and has done quite well until FICO came in and changed all the rules-- not to mention the very real possiblity that replacing seasoned underwriting professionals and bankers with a highly flawed piece of software cooked up by a pack of hacks out of MIT could destablize this entire sector, which today is one of the main pillars of the economic strength and solidity that has brought an unprecedented period of growth and prosperity to the american people. computer models are fine for weather patterns-- you can get a few hours of accurate forecast, a day or two if you're lucky; they keep track of space junk in orbit to make sure a space shuttle or somebodys $12 billion satellite doesn't get destroyed by a collision, and they're great for that, too. marketplaces and human behavior are realms where computer modeling simply can't do the job; in fact, when the most highly skilled professionals in these fields make plenty of mistakes even at their very best, how then can the likes of a notebook computer give an accurate analysis of how a borrower is likely to perform on a home loan, or more specifically, how can this thing brand me as an unacceptable risk given the fact that i have flawless credit and a great deal of equity in the proprties that i own. there is no basis for it in fact, and therefore it is arbitrary and discriminatory. in order to proceed, we will need appropriate legal representation and a strategy of approach; who do we name as responsible parties, and upon what legal grounds do we present the case to a judge and jury? if we can prove that the CRA's are putting discriminatory information onto our credit reports [the FICO score], a federal court could order that all credit scores be removed from consumers' profiles. traditionally, a lender would look at an applcant's financial profile and credit history to determine whether or not to make a loan, and if so, upon what terms and conditions. sitting on a property with $300,000+ in equity, and the lender requires the borrower to pay off $100,000 in outstanding debt is quite a reasonable request, one which borrower and banker can negotiate and agree upon, or walk away from each other if they can't see eye to eye. FICO makes this impossible-- the computer has not been programmed to negotiate, consider long term business realtionships that have remained in good standing for many years, or to look at how the applicant's financial position will improve once a large amount of debt is consolidated into one low-interest, tax-deductible monthly payment. the likelihood of such a borrower, with no history of delinquency or poor managment of credit, going into default is far less than if the debt load is left as is, with much more money servicing higher interest debt, and overall cash flow that much harder to carry. i estimate actual FICO related between $60,000 and $70,000 over the past 2 years alone, a burden which would bankrupt many of us out there in the real world, and one which for me has had a considerable portion of my income going to debt service, and equity erosion when prinipal balances increase, or multiple refinances become necessary to access large amounts of money needed to eliminat high interest consumer debt, or start a new project [this idea fades to black, courtesy unfair isaac]. i don't forsee any possibilty of continuing in forward momentum until this issue can be addressed-- in fact, FICO is threatening my entire livelihood and professional identity. while not facing imminent financial disaster, never before have i been so adversely affected by anything i have ever encountered in this line of work, which i have been doing for over 15 years. last year i had to downsize my property holdings, and went through two totally unnecessary FICO forced refinances, with interest rates going up each time through the mill. FICO is the reason why i am paying 8.5% to as high as 11% on all my mortgages, when i should be in the 6%-7.5% range. on behalf of wells fargo and PNC national bank, my mortgage broker will put this in writing, and would be happy to prepare affadavits or even testify in court to this fact. if one person is treated unfairly, that's one person too many. the credit scoring system penalizes me because i am self-employed and require "no-doc" loans. in the past, that has meant an extra quarter point on the rate. today it means an offer of 10.125% with one point on a 30 year fixed. one credit card company closed my account because my FICO score dropped 5 points, in spite of perfect repayment. that was Associates National Bank-- you may want to avoid them, especially if you take available lines of credit into consideration with financial planning, as most of us tend to do. all FICO victims are welcome to contact me and join in the effort--- we will also need a good lawyer to assemble and present the case, and to represent our position in what will probably be federal court. please respond if you have been shafted by unfair isaac's idiot computer banker. i'm sure at least half of you out there reading this post know what i mean, even if it hasn't affected you to the extent is has me. i posted a brief summary of my situation on www.classaction.com under both the real estate and credit and debt sections, though there have been no responses thus far-- just a couple of posts agreeing with my position. thanks for your consideration--- * have a nice camping trip too, christine-- * more information is forthcoming-
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 04:16 am unfair isaac forgot to factor in things like equity positions and how a borrower's overall credit profile will change if the loan in question should be allowed to close. Fair, Issac did not 'forget' to factor these two issue. The fact of the matter is, these two issues have NO bearing whatsoever on your PAST CREDIT HISTORY. Fair, Issac crunches your PAST credit history, not your 'possible future potential'. That would be assinine to include what 'might happen if the loan is approved' in an algorithm that's doing nothing more than analyzing PAST credit history, which is EXACTLY what it's supposed to do - predict risk based on PAST history, not future promises. As for 'equity positions', that could be debated, but just because you own something today does not mean you are a good credit risk. You could be sued tomorrow, you could sell it tomorrow and lose everything at the casino, etc. I would agree that if the lender is giving you the loan while using the property (that you have good equity in) as security interest, that should be considered. But it doesn't necessarily make you a better 'overall' credit risk because you have equity in a property (or cash in the bank, for that matter). the credit scoring system penalizes me because i am self-employed and require "no-doc" loans. The FICO scoring system does has NOTHING to do with your self-employment status or the fact that you WANT a no-doc loan. That is solely and completely up to the lender/broker, NOT Fair, Issac. To blame Fair, Issac is silly. What I don't understand is that you keep saying, over and over, that you have this flawless credit history, yet your scores are under 680. I find this terribly hard to believe. I have one of several variations of up to 3 paid collections and 1 car repossession on each of my histories, and I'm 677, 692 and 700. What's on your histories that's bringing you below 680 ?? I believe that FICO scoring has it's place in the credit world. It's what allows me to walk into a store and receive 'Instant Credit' if I so choose to do. My biggest problem with FICO scoring, however, is that we don't truly know what directly influences the scores, how and to what extreme. I know the factors that go into figuring my home mortgage payment, but I don't know what factors are used to calculate my scores. I would like something better than a handful of 'Reason Codes' to help me figure out just what the hell I'm doing wrong ...
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 05:00 am John Said: "But it doesn't necessarily make you a better 'overall' credit risk because you have equity in a property (or cash in the bank, for that matter)." Are you suggesting that if these were reported that Fair, Isaac wouldn't try to use them to predict credit risk? Money in the bank doesn't mean anything but inquiries do?
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 10:24 am Referring to a company that tells you you have 'Too Many Revolving Accounts' and 'Not Enough Revolving Accounts', but refuses to tell you HOW MANY ACCOUNTS is the RIGHT NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS, I would not even attempt to predict what information Fair, Issac might or might not use if it were available to them. Money in the bank does NOT, in my opinion, help predict credit risk or credit worthiness. In a matter of 90 seconds, you can withdraw all that money and waste it at the craps tables in Vegas. However, your PAST HISTORY OF PAYMENT ACTIVITY can NOT be changed on a whim, and is (if accurate) an absolute indicator of credit risk. A woman cheated on each of her last eight boyfriends, one per year let's say, and EVERY time she cheated it was in the months of March or April, and it happened when each boyfriend was out of town on a business trip. All were bankers in the banking industry, going to a banker's convention. Now she's on boyfriend #9. She PROMISES that she won't cheat (aka 'money in the bank'). If you were a betting man, what kind of odds would you give me on: (1) The probability that she will or will not cheat again (2) The probability that any such cheating will occur either during March or April. (3) The probability that boyfriend #9 will be out of town if she cheats on him. Predicatbility is much more accurate when based on PAST PERFORMANCE than if it were to be based on FUTURE PROMISED POTENTIAL. Again, I think there are many flaws with the current scoring model(s). But as well, I do not believe that using unknowns,uncertains or unreliable futures within the algorithms are appropriate factors for determining future creditworthiness or credit risk.
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 06:54 pm i have not had a single 30 day late payment in over 10 years. my credit profile shows that quite clearly. my middle fico score it 653. that brands me as a substandard borrower under present rules. you can't negotitiate or rationalize with a piece of shit software program once it has been given the place of absolute judge, jury, and rejectioner. care to see?- i will be happy to fax or post it here, removing the vitals that might give a potential scammer access to my accounts. FICO is supposed to be calculating future risk based upon past events. it's not doing that here. all it's doing is making it impossible for me to obtain market rate financing on my property. when human bankers look at my profile, they make loans to me, naturally taking a bit of advantage of my compromised position. they also tell me that FICO has been screwing me up, down, and sideways since it took over the mortgage underwriting industry. FICO is deceit, discrimination, and Quackery all rolled up in a neat little software package. its proclaimed purpose is to predict risk-- that is, the future. anybody can run up all their accounts and donate it all to the casinos in las vegas. no computer model can predict human behavior-- if it could, it would make trillions by knowing every marketplace in the world in a matter of hours or days, and economics as we understand it would be coming to an abrupt and painful end. looking at PAST PERFORMANCE to help determine what is likely to take place in the FUTURE, you will see credit history with no late payment EVER, and a borrower trying to consolidate high interest consumer debt and real estate loans into one concise little low interest, tax deductible package. if i went for 10 years paying $7000 a month in debt service, is it more likely that i will then default once that outlay is reduced to $5000 a month? FICO seems to think so, and we all know that computers only do what they are told to do-- nothing more, nothing less. if FICO didn't think i was an unacceptable risk, it would be giving me scores indicative of this fact, as now prescribed by the fannie mae/ freddie mac mortgage megalopoly. there is no promise of future potential, and when a lender takes a mortgage on a property, none can be given. some demented base commander in siberia could get itchyfinger, and my property and i all go up in a massive thermonuclear fireball. trying to borrow 70% of the appraised value is less risk to a lender if i wish to borrow 100%, all of it. FICO has not been told to consider this. what it will do in 30 minutes is write a commitment to a kid 2 years out of high school with a $9 an hour job and a 5% downpayment on a $600,000 property, while writing me a denial on refinancing the same property with 30% equity or downpayment, harvard grad, and many years of past history of repayment of debt. when the going gets rough, as FICO has made it for me for the past few years, who do you think is more likely to go into default or file a bankruptcy petition? somebody's software with the absolute power seems to think it would be me-- in fact, if i kicked the bucket tomorrow, there's no way a lender is going to lose money foreclosing a $650,000 property with a $440,000 lien on it. all of my tenants are current on their somewhat under market-value rents, and in over 6 years, i have had only 2 vacancies and no evictions or landlord related lawsuits filed against me. credit scoring has become a ridiculous farce, a stupid game everyone is forced to play without ever knowing the rules. how can you win? nobody knows, because nobody has been told how to play. last year i sold a piece of property for the very first time, more out of FICO generated necessity than desire to get out, and came away with a big lump of cash. this bid adieu to all my consumer debt, some contractors and family issues, and one mortgage went bye-bye. months of waiting, and my scores went up 14 points, still not enough to get that magical 680. closing out credit card didn't make much difference either, and now i understand that scores can actually be negatively affected by doing this--- let them yank their heads out of their asses and realize that if they base risk on the possibility that a borrower might max it out everywhere and go on a massive casino spree, the inherent risk to creditors becomes less when the borrower voluntarily cancels their own revolving credit account. nobody knows exactly what FICO wants to see on the profile to give good scores-- we are all shooting blind. a banker can tell me precisely what must happen for my loan request to be granted, or why an application must be denied. a raft of charge-offs and late payments, cargone, foreclosure, bankruptcy, civil judgements, etc.. are valid reasons for denying credit, especially unsecured credit. people posting scenarios here with many of these things within the recent past, 2 years or less, show scores better than mine. when applying for real estate loans, i have never asked for consideration based on promised future potential-- my past performance should speak more than adequately for itself as it is. it appears i am being judged more upon possible future problem than the past, as their is nothing anywhere in my past profile to upon which to find fault or base a denial of credit, other than the fact that i am self employed, and have always used "no-doc" loan products, which most lenders offer at rates about a quarter point higher than "full-doc." it has been only since FICO scoring has been used for all conventional underwriting that i have had problems obtaining financing, and lenders i work with tell me that FICO is the ONLY reason why. if this method can be used to approve loans quickly and efficiently, that's all well and good-- it's all rotten and bad when it categorically denies credit to otherwise perfectly qualified borrowers while precluding any lattitude or flexibility to be excercised at the lender's discretion if such a borrower's note is to ever be saleable on the secondary mortgage markets. the human element has been removed from what has traditionally been one of the most human professions [banking], where as often as not, decisions can be based as much upon longstanding business relatiships based on trust and mutual respect as by facts and figures, with both banker and client deriving fullest benefit. in the past, a bank whose real estate loans might be sold on secondary markets carried their share of responsibility for decisions loan officers may make, and called to answer for lending practises in the event an inordinant percentage of loans they sold went into default or ended up listed on bankruptcy petitions. who bears that burden now? nearly all of the conventional underwriting done in this country today is computerized, using this modeling software written by (un)fair isaac and passed off on the fed. a real estate professional myself, i shudder to think of who gets approved for many of these microwave quick-sell mortgages; little or no money down, perhaps not even a high school diploma, unstable employment history, and insufficient language skills to properly fill out application forms without assistance, and i'm not making reference to anyone whose native language is anything other than good ol' american english. i'll fax or email my credit profile to anyone who doubts what i say, or thinks i have been treated fairly by this system of borrower evaluation. you be the judge if you think i'm crying wolf. going into federal court will be the mortgage brokers who have tried fruitlessly to refinance existing loans or procure new notes for purchases, and who have been unable to do so because of FICO. i also have letters of appeal written on my behalf after a loan application has been denied, and responses in writing from Powers That Be On High at wells fargo and PNC national bank that FICO alone is responsible for denial of my requests for credit. washington mutual has non-ficoboud products, and are holding two mortgages for me now, at rates of interest 8.625% and 9.125%. in the past year, one of my notes has been rewritten TWICE by these fine fellows on the property that appraised for $740,000 with the $453,000 first mortgage on it. the other one is now under 50% LTV, and they have offered to "streamline" it down to a competitive rate; this is in process. they want to sell the note, and it appears the fed is allowing this to be done without a credit report, as i have never been late on the payments. apart from the numeric FICO score, there is nothing on my credit profile to indicate that i am anything less than A+ risk. running my credit isn't bad in itself, though it lowers my scores every time somebody does it, so i try to avoid it whenever possible. my mortgage broker faxes it to me each time i am denied for a loan, and i pass it on to others who may want to see it. here's a big ducky-waddle and loud rump belch for the quackies at unfair isaac-- they sold the fed on this thing, and if they can do that maybe they should be selling ice futures to the eskimoes-  * sand contracts in saudi arabia????- you got it--- only in america could they find a serious buyer, and one who makes use of the damn thing at that-- it would be funny if not so sad--- *** one band of jackasses bought into the biggest scam ever foisted on the federal government. i'll take unfair isaac idiots seriously when they come up with a computer model for the stock market-- i have $6000 in my etrade account, let's hear about getting rid of a $450,000 mortgage that way, OK?? ..and please don't tell me to buy FIC on the NYSE either, guyys, just so you understand. hick-haww! and good night!
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 07:30 pm Dude, you're such a whiner. I found out my FICO score today (Experian) and it's 608 (down from 657 in December). I have no delinquencies or derogatories on my credit profile either. Do you hear me whining? No. In fact part of the reason why my score is low is because of excessive inquiries. One of those inquiries is a result of the person that holds my mortgage and to whom I make payments trying to sell that mortgage on the secondary market. That racked up 7 chargable inquiries as he shopped the note. Which brings us back to the point of this thread: Can inquiries be deleted off your profile? No. They can, however, be recharacterized as non-consumer initiated. For example a credit union pulled my credit when I signed up with them and pre-approved me for an overdraft protection loan. I forwarded a copy of that letter indicating that I was preapproved to Experian along with the argument that the inquiry was for promotional purposes and got it recharacterized as a non-chargable inquiry. P.S. With that 608 score I did get approved for an 8.4% vehicle loan through my credit union.
|
| | Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 08:22 pm if FICO was sucking your blood to the tune of a grand a week, you'd be whining too, shylock.
|
| | Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 08:15 am Doug- Have you sent your report[s] to Christine? What does she have to add to this? I think it would be great if she posted your appropriately blacked-out report in her FICO is Fraud section. Perhaps by looking at it we can see a reason that you are missing. What are the reasons listed for the low score on the report? Shylock- Some of us do not qualify for Credit Union membership and low scores do prevent good finance rates for those of us stuck with them. A 608 would get me 16% if I am lucky at a dealership. I would probably be whining too if I had Doug's problems.
|
| | Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 06:34 pm Shylock said his score dropped 49 points since December and the only change was 7 inquiries. I wonder if you get charged 7 points per each inquiry that occurs within the past 6 months??
|
| | Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 06:52 pm Some credit unions have eligibility just based upon where you live or work. Or if you have family members that are with one they can often get you in. It can be hard to find one that you are eligible to join but the better rates are worth the effort for when you do.
|
| | Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 04:52 am I still think Doug is missing the point. Fico is only generating a score. His issue should be with corporate america and the way they choose of their own free will to interpet that score. Fico in and of itself does not mandate that compnaies must use it, Fico does not approve or deny credit, Fico doesn't denying him anything. His banks are the ones determining that since they cannot resell his loan there is just not enough profitablity in doing business with him. It is a business decision and the banks have no obligation to do business with him just because it will save him money. My credit union turned me done on a small consolidation loan which would have saved me money. I have never missed a payment with them (automatic drafting) they do not use Fico, the sole reason for denial was more than 8 inquiries in the last year. They have their policy and just because it would save me money that does not mean they have any obligation to give me a loan. It was a business decision. Doug's analogy is would have me suing Experian for reporting my inquiries.
|
| | Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 08:06 am Doug is missing the point. Don, you saved me the typing - good post.
|
| | Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 09:32 am Well it's kind of like the arguments for and against holding manufacturers of cheap hand guns liable for when their guns are used in crimes. The manufacturers certainly aren't commiting murder. They are just making guns and selling them to retailers. A lot of people, myself included, think that because they are making money from selling these guns they should carry some responsibility for how those guns are used. Same goes with FICO scores...
|
| | Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 05:40 pm Hmmm... what about arsonists and match manufacturers? Are the manufacturers responsible for 'negligent marketing practices' that permit arsonists to set fires? What about vehicle makers and car accidents? Should Ford be sued by every person who's been injured in an accident because they make cars? What about rape victims? Should they sue and get a judgement against all men because they have a penis? Where is the line drawn?
|
| | Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 08:53 pm I think strong arguments can be made on both sides. Personally, I think you have to look at each issue separately and that makes it impossible to draw a line to your satisfaction. From my point of view, if you are a company selling a product that is harming innocents. And that product is netting you big $$$ (profit motive) then I am more inclined to think your company should hold some responsibility. It's a judgement call. I guess that's why we have judges.
|
| | Friday, February 09, 2001 - 07:23 am Erik: When a product is used for something other than what it is intended to be used for, how can you hold a manufacturer liable? If somebody kills someone by stabbing them with a Craftsman screwdriver, is Sears liable? Whether a gun is a cheap piece of junk or a high quality firearm, the fact remains that the gun ends up in the hands of a dealer in order to sell it. It's the DEALER, not the manufacturer, who should be held accountable if he chooses to sell the gun to someone who shouldn't have it (read: the dealer doesn't follow the law). Anybody who believes that a MANUFACTURER should be held liable because some low-life idiot used a gun that THEY manufactured while committing a crime is an absolute fool. The low-life is using the gun for something other than what it's intended use (just like the screwdriver). Do you think the sales brochures for a Smith & Wession Model 645 Stainless semi-automatic handgun states "Use this to committ crimes and shoot people while your're at it!". Nope. Security and/or personal and public protection - that's the intended purpose. What if someone was using a handgun for a HAMMER, pounding nails, and it went off and killed the guy. Do you hold the manufacturer liable? Nope. And it's no different than using a gun to commit a crime. To get this all back on topic: FICO is a tool to be used as part of an entire approval/denial package -- it's not THE tool or the ONLY piece of the puzzle. If used properly, and if well maintained, it can be a good tool for accurately determining credit risk.
|
| | Friday, February 09, 2001 - 09:39 am "Anybody who believes that a MANUFACTURER should be held liable because some low-life idiot used a gun that THEY manufactured while committing a crime is an absolute fool." Can I open up a company to make bombs? Hey, if those bombs are used by one of my customers to blow up some federal building that wouldn't be my fault. The bombs I make would all be labeled 'For Souvenir Purposes Only - Do Not Detonate'.
|
| | Friday, February 09, 2001 - 10:20 am "Can I open up a company to make bombs? Hey, if those bombs are used by one of my customers to blow up some federal building that wouldn't be my fault." Yes, that's exactly correct. Various explosives have many legitimate uses in construction, mining, and demolition. If you sell them to properly trained and creditialed people with legitimate purposes, you should not be held liable. If, however, you load up a truck and drive it downtown ans start passing bombs out to anyone with twenty bucks, you should be liable. In the American courts lately, however, your liability is base based soley on your ability to pay damages.
|
| | Friday, February 09, 2001 - 07:01 pm You bet, Chris. Good points. Right on. This world is, now, so full of sue-happy idiots looking for a free ride on the 'let somebody else pay for it' express ...
|
| | Friday, February 09, 2001 - 10:15 pm i would have no argument with FICO if it left the lenders i have always used for financing my real estate transacations free to make decisions as they see fit, and not to be heavily penalized if they sell the notes on secondary markets-- it is the fed who has laid in bed with the unfair isaac whore, and it is their policy that now mandates a denial letter to every mortgage applicant falling short of the mystical 680 score spit out by their ack-basswards software that nobody knows anything about, as if paying bills promptly and trying to get a loan at 70% LTV or less means something is wrong, and you are thereby certified unacceptable to obtain credit. yeah and behold, you make such good points everybody-- sell guns to kids at the corner pop shop for $19, then it's your son whose brains are blasted all over the pavement, and you want redress. FICO is like a federal prescription that forbids kids to settle their disputes by any form of mutual understanding; it ties that gun to his fist and counts to 10, backwards. 680 spitout means no dispute--- anything less means somebody has to lose. sorry, forget your bankers, business relationships or references-- life and death now come in a little tin can packaged up somewhere in hogsqaush, california. infested with trichinosis, sorry, the fed says hygeine doesn't apply to pigs out there, so if parasitic roundworms infest your body, it's quite OK. you shouldn't be eating meat anyway, right?? so it's your own stupid fault. if you pay all your consumer credit accounts down to 0, wait several months, then try to refinance $1+ million in real estate notes and FICOfuCs machine spit raspberries you just didn't wait long enough to apply, or perhaps too long, or perhaps you got rid of one credit card too many, too few, and who knows?, because nobody is ever told how to know. care to play a round of golf blindfolded?? under federal sanction, that's no less than what unfair isaac is asking ordinary people to do. i'm not a subscriber to credit scoring, and while my line of work requires me to make recommendations based upon credit profiles coming off a computer, never do i consider numerical scores, and in the event anything questionable does appear, i sit with the clients and lend an open mind to past difficulty, ask for references, and offer every opportunity to correct any errors the computer may show. with hundreds of people coming through my office every year, engaging in transaction involving thousands of dollars, i dare say i can count on the fingers of one hand (minus thumb) the number of people i decline or recommend adversely, due to strange or aberrant behavior, criminal history, or a credit profile indicative of an outright derelict. even D credit can often be acceptable at no extra cost other than asking for a fully refundable security deposit. that's the way my creditors have treated me over the years, and i have never asked for anything more. the traditional "no-doc" mortgage means an extra quarter point on the rate, which i realize is indicative of a nominally higher risk inherent in the industry, and pay with no complaint. FICO is quackery-- duckduck!!- it is generating a score, and that number is now the absolute yes or no as to whether or not i can refinance real estate at even marginaly competitive rates-- when it says no, i'm B/C borrower, regardless of how i have repaid my debts in the past, and regardless of how much equity i hold in the properties being considered, even my primary residence, which i am enjoying repaying at 9.125%, courtesy F*uCkO-- . so glad all of you like this system ohhh so much; you probably will until it screws you too-- enjoy, while you can---
|
| | Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 05:11 pm Your beef is with the Fed, not with Fair Isaac. In order to encourage housing the federal government has created many agencies, from the HUD, FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Make no mistake about it, these are subsidies to people. The government is giving away money to people, normally lower-income or minorities, in order to encourage them to engage in home ownership. Now here we have Douglas crying that he can't get his 'fair share' of the subsidy. As case in point we hear him crying about how difficult it is to refinance his personal residence worth approximately $450,000. This poor guy is required to get a loan at market rates instead of being able to enjoy federal largess at the taxpayer's expense. Boo hoo. He proceeds from this to the conclusion that only a lawsuit against Fair Isaac will compensate him. His lack of federal subsidies are 'actual, provable damages' for which he wants Fair Isaac to reimburse him because they provide a tool that Fannie Mae uses to determine who will and who will not receive below-market rates. Maybe Douglas will find sympathy out there, but he doesn't find any from me.
|
| | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 04:42 am Again I think Doug is still missing the point. Just because he has never missed a payment in his entire life, this really has nothing to do with a person's score. Fico is merely predicting the statisical chances a person with this particular set of past and present circumstances has of meeting their obligations in the FUTURE. Corporations are basing their decisions based on their view of acceptable risk. And with Jumbo mortages face it there is definately an increased risk.
|
| | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 07:52 pm my mortgage is not a jumbo. i'm not looking for shylock's sympathy. 35 cents and shylock's sympathy buys a stale doughnut and a coffee-stained copy of last saturday's paper. i'll pocket the 35 cents and put shylock's fair sympathy where it belongs with stale newspapers. 9.125% on your first mortgage is not market rate. that's what B/C borrowers pay following a recent discharge of bankruptcy or with a lenghty history of charge-offs and reposessions. people who get the computer to spit out a magical 680 don't get below-market interest financing at government expense, or any kind of subsidy. they get market rate mortgages, because unfair isaac has sucessfully bedded the fed, getting them to believe that their forbidden formula for risk can accurately predict who will default and who will not. think now of PMI, which has traditionally been required of borrowers whose equity in their property is less than 20%. if you read my posts before judging them, shylock, you would see that i have $654,000 appraisal on my primary residence and owe $440,000 in outstanding liens. my lenders want to refinance this to a MARKET rate, but are unable to do so, because the FED has branded me as an UNACCEPTABLE risk, based not upon my credit profile, equity position, or willingness and ability to repay. NO ONE sees my credit profile to make this determination--- it is generated by computer, using a quack software program written by a company in california, which generates this FICO score. if the program is so reliable, defend it upon its merits here in open forum. when i pay my consumer debt down near $0.00, my scores never go high enough to obtain MARKET RATE financing on my properties. is this because i own too much, or don't pay all cash like the likes of donald trump can for his house?? am i a better risk if i open more accounts, close existing ones, apportion my debt load at any given time HOW??? exactly might i be best evaluated by the hackware as acceptable risk. you are right in citing today that my beef is with the fed, and they are going to regret the biggest blunder they ever made. buying into this load of economic sorcery and buffalo chips when the secondary market investors start chowing down massive defaults, and they are called to answer for it. the FED has been deceived into thinking that a computer program can do a better job than can a human being at making lending decisions. until FICO came along, i never had problems with getting loans, or repaying them. next time your child gets very sick, don't go to a doctor-- just plug the symptoms into your PC and do as it says. sorry, no special conditions, past history, drug allergies, etc. will be heard-- do as programmed; if your kid dies, hearken unto an "unfortunately" your chlid's sickness didn't conform to how most little kids get sick at that age in "your" part of the country, in "your" class of people, sorry if the computer took "your" situation and the kid didn't respond to "the correct" diagnosis; now we say "shut up and call the undertaker," listen to more "unfortunately" if you think somebody didn't do their job, and go to hell if you think someone doesn't know how to teach computers pediatrics-- some lawmakers deemed it the absolute truth, so if it's your child coming out in a casket instead of mommy's arms busting with joy, end of story. so long, good night, and enjoy the burial. remove liver instead of appendix?, "we regret" computer. this is how FICO is controlling the real estate industry. banker/client is a relationship, as much as is doctor/patient. neither one should be undermined in favor of a computer model. one case where machines screw up is one case too many, and this newsgroup alone is resplendent with one FICO victim after another who has been misplaced by a technology that simply lacks the development and exactitude to take the place of a qualified human professional in any field, especially where there remains the SLIGHTEST possibility that SUBJECTIVE evaluation may arrive at more definitive ANSWERS to any given question than performance of modern computers has yet to (or may ever) attain, such as trust, instinct, and equitable consideration. take the humans out of the chain of command, and you also remove humanity. again, shylock, watch the film WARGAMES, and thank your lucky stars, as i do mine, that (UN)fair isaac wasn't in control of things during the cuban missile crisis, or for that matter, at any time since. real life isn't hollywood, and i still don't want sympathy, shylock. i do want to be treated fairly as does everyone, and if you have a solution to the problem that FICO has created for me, and perhaps many thousands like me all over the USA, i'm happy to hear about it. thanks and goodnight everybody-- douglas pratt
|
| | Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 10:39 am I have never heard anything so silly and obviously wrong as someone claiming they can't get market prices. If 9.125% is the rate that private investors are willing to loan you money at then that is, by very definition, market rates. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are subsidized. Accordingly they can and do purchase mortgages at below market rates. If conventional underwriters could do a better job for less money than FICO scores, then those companies that were using conventional underwriters would be making record profits and FICO scores would have to be abandoned by those companies using it because they would be suffering losses. The reality is completely the other way around. I know of no major lending institution that isn't score driven. ************************ You claim you can't score 680, but there is obviously something about your credit profile that you're not telling us. It's simple math. FICO scores range from 300ish to almost 900. That's a 600 point spread. We also know from Fair Isaac's website that derogatories account for 35 percent of your score and outstanding debt accounts for 30 percent. Simple math tells us that a person who has no derogatory information will gain 210 points for that (35% of 600). A person who has no outstanding debt will gain 180 points for that (30% of 600) and since the lowest score is 300 (possibly higher) we can calculate that a person under that situation would score 690 (300+210+180). That doesn't even count length of file history. Since you say that you've had no derogatories in the past ten years you must be able to score at least a few points for having a long file history and your score should be over 700 and an easy qualification for a mortgage. When you apply for a loan and are turned down there are a list of reasons why you didn't score higher. Why don't you share those reasons with us?
|
| | Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 05:33 pm I'm no expert, but from what I've read in lots of posts as well as on Fair Isaac's web site, your numerical score is not derived that way, Shylock. Apparently, you get points or lose points for each category but then they take THAT score and compare it to the rest of the population's score with some formula to come up with a number on a scale of 300-900 which represents your credit risk level. Plus, there are lots of things they're looking at that we don't know of as well as that mysterious formula so I don't think we're going to crack it here. But I would like to see what the reasons they list for Doug's score.
|
| | Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 06:31 pm Credit scoring isn't predicting defaults, it's CAUSING the defaults.
|
| | Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 12:41 am the reason codes that appear on my report along with the numerical scores are for too many inquiries in the past year (trying too hard to get a decent refinance), amount of outstanding debt (less than 50% overall, which all goes away if i'm allowed access to the equity in my property), number of accounts (i close them up when i pay them off; getting rid of 3 credit cards and $60,000 of consumer debt brought my middle score from 641 to 654)-- experian, worst of all, still has me scored at 625. bear in mind that bankers and investors offering good product DO WANT to write my loans; the fed's minimum FICO score requirements prevent them from selling them on the secondary markets, so they can't. i don't know of any major lender that is not FICO driven. i have pre-approval letters from 1998 and 1999. my credit profile is virtually unchanged since then; the difference is that my mortgage brokers knew lenders who weren't FICObound able to offer good rates. in june, 1999, an approval was turned into a rejection by FICO scoring when the under-writer for PNC national bank told my mortgage broker that a minimum score requirement had been raised from 640 to 680 by the fed for a "no-doc" loan, and at the time i fell somewhere in between. yes became no literally overnight, and i'm sure it had nothing to do with my becoming a greater risk sometime between dinner and breakfast. 3 weeks to closing, i had $25,000 in escrow, my mortgage commitment had been issued but i was suddenly unable to meet the rather non-specific terms of the bank's scoring requirement. i had planned this purchase, had the downpayment money set aside, and was forced to find another lender. that i did, glue-on 5/8% to the rate, and lower LTV, meaning i had to produce more cash. we did this too, with my friendly neighborhood bank writing a note on my house at 11%. isn't this oh so "fair"? in america today?? in february 1998 i was approved for an 80% LTV loan on a purchase that never closed because the seller of the property accepted a lower offer from someone else. stupidity does abound in this industry-- it isn't limited to the likes of the fed when they bought into (un)fair isaac's quack mortgage denial software programs. if i were to go back today to get an approval from that same lender, i would be denied based entirely upon the FICO scores. nothing else has changed, accept the fact that i own alittle more property and all my bills are still paid on time. car lease expired last september, and i bought this time. experian had me scored at 583, so the bank jacked my rate there a bit too. chances are, i will pay the car off long before maturity-- by what i understand, this can also hurt my credit scores. if the veil of secrecy were to be removed from the priveleged (un)fair isaac, it would be lawsuit city USA, and the fed themselves could find themselves sitting at the defendant's table as much as isaac- why is it that consumers don't have the right to know each and every drop of data that is being used to generate numerical scores if that is how they are being approved for, or denied, credit?!? before FICO, a lender could require that proceeds from a real estate loan be used to eliminate outstanding debt, and this is exactly what i want to do. no provision is made to communicate this fact to the computer denying my application. not even lenders themselves can tell me what to do-- my mortgage man said inquiries affect the scores for only 90 days; the recent release of risk codes indicates that it goes back a full year. each attempt to get a better interest rate makes it more likely that subsequent attempts will continue to fail. congress should remove the exemption against the UN "fair" practise of not allowing anyone to see exactly how they are being evaluated by machine. there should be no mystery as to what i should do to once again be deemed an acceptable risk. FICO also penalizes lenders-- they may consider me a most viable client and wish to have my business-- the fed is now mandating that such lenders must adhere to the minimum score guidelines, or sit on a "non-conforming" note until maturity. they have to service it, and unless the borrower pays out, sells the property, or refinances, that lender is sitting on one great big, illiquid asset. as a result, large volume lenders don't underwrite the loans, and lose business. using FIOC scoring, the government is imposing a regulation over what is supposed to be a free market industry. it hasn't enacted any laws-- it just changes the way larger banks whose funds are provided by investors in mortgage backed securities can conduct business. scratch longstanding relationships between client and service provider- the computer has taken that element out of the loop entirely. i'm still waiting for my mortgage broker to write the letter specifically indicating FICO scoring as the direct source of all the dificulty i have been having--- this i will provide to christine, and ask her to present it in this forum as she sees fit, along with my scores, report summary, and wells fargo's letter which also has based its denial of credit entirely upon my FICO data, even after a loan supervisor signed off on it and i paid for an appraisal. (un)fair isaac may be the authors of the software that has lead to this mess-- the fed is in it up to their earballs, and the three major CRA's also play their parts. why do i get different scores from each one, when the data they have on me is all the same. experian is particularly harsh, and i have been told that they are the primary bureau for this part of the country (boston), while the other two are also primary for other geographic areas. one possible way to dispense with FICO's hold over the mortgage industry might be to bring a discrimination-based class action the CRAs; the credit score is the sole basis for denial, i have no idea how it was formulated or what precisely i can do to improve it, therefore it is a violation of federal fair lending laws-- remove it from my and everybody's else's credit profiles. so many times i have thrown out the obvious fact that if such computer models could be absolutely reliabe, why hasn't somebody like isaac who specializes in risk assessment written a version for wall street and made trillions in the stock markets? the real reason is self-evident; computer technology is a full century away from being able to do this kind of thing- if it were presently possible, somebody out there would be doing in NOW, and making bill gates look like a pauper by comparison. credit scoring is a failure. so is communism. i guess it all boils down to what has to be endured and how many people have to suffer before those in control have the strength and courage to step forward, admit that they screwed up, correct the mistakes, and set things right again. that's all we can ask, and all we can expect. another night up all night. goodnight everybody- *
|
| | Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 07:50 am Ok, so when you pay off those credit cards you also close them. That's the problem right there.
|
| | Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 12:35 pm Well, it's ONE problem. If Doug listed the reasons in the order they were given, the MAIN problem is inquiries. I DO have a page at http://www.bayhouse.com/loanshop.shtml telling people how to shop for a mortgage and get the best rate. While it doesn't make credit scoring and the use of inquiries to lower the score right, following the instructions would avoid many problems. Of course it's WORK to read it, and even MORE WORK to follow the advice.
|
| | Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 12:57 pm MV (Mel): From the Fair Isaac website there is a list of things that control your credit score and a breakdown of how much weight each factor has. Payment History: approximately 35% of your score. Amounts Owed: approximately 30% of your score. Length of Credit History: Approximately 15% of your score. New Credit: approximately 10% of your score. Types of Credit in Use: approximately 10% of your score. So you see, it's simple math. If a person isn't scoring 690 they have a problem either on their payment record (derogatories) or they owe too much.
|
| | Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 02:15 pm Or they have too many inquiries, or they have too few accounts, or they have too many accounts, or they have finance company accounts, or they owe too little, ... Shylock, lets see the formula. I got straight As all the way through calculus one, so I should be able to follow "simple math."
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |