     Anonymous | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 05:50 am 
I recieved it through e-loan and it was in the high 400's which is very low. I have been getting some stuff deleting off my reports.However, I have some charged-offs going off my report in the next three years. Most of the creditors willnot take these items out even with payment.I have decided to wait for these to drop out of my report.I advise everyone to use the free service from e-loan and find out what their score. Cheers. |
| Jennifer Persinger (Velvet) | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 05:55 am
Yeah, I found out mine isn't as bad as I thought it would be. I was expecting it to be in the 300s, and instead, I'm about 50 points from the 'High Risk' category. Still not great, but better than I thought.
Unfortunately, my husband doesn't have a long enough credit history to even rank a score yet :( But we'll get there. |
| Don | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 06:23 am
Wow, Talk about a drop, when I started the house hunting process, before cleaning up my credit history my score was a 582 (9/98). A year later when I was cleaned up and approved for my mortgage, my score was 647 (10/99). When I checked at e-loan, it is now a 570. The only changes since 10/99 are:
1) refinancing my car with my credit union for a lower rate (7% vs 23%). (additional inquiry)
2) refinancing a finance company loan with one from my credit union (10% vs 24%). (additional inquiry)
3) moving into the house with the mortage payment now on the report. (new trade line, lack of residence)
There have been no late payments or anything about two years. I am wondering which hurts more the move or the replacing of two credit lines (even though they improve my financial position.) |
| Sean (Sean) | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 06:34 am
I was disappointed by their service. I had hoped to receive a list of the reasons why I did not score better. |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 09:03 am
Don: are you sure you're comparing scores from the same repository? As far as I can tell, E-Loan's scores are coming from Experian. I happen to have a recent (Feb. 00) copy of my reports from all three bureaus in front of me--I check them every year. This morning I got my (single) score from E-Loan. Yes, it was 666. (Do I need a credit counselor or a Pentecostal minister?) However, I can tell from my reports that Experian has the fewest tradelines reported for me, and also has an old trade showing with a balance due (the other bureaus correctly show no balance and account sold). It's quite likely that the scores from the other bureaus would be higher.
You seem to be assuming that new loans count only as "inquiries." Remember, they also count as new loans. Are you sure that your "old" car loan and finance company loans are being reported as paid in full? (It can take a while.) If you were approved for a mortgage in 10/99, when did you close? When was your first payment? Most mortgage companies don't report mortgage trades until at least two payments have been made.
Sean, I certainly agree that they ought to provide the reason codes. Why wouldn't they? |
| Don | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 09:53 am
I just checked my 12/99 Experian. The mortgage is being reported on there (closed on house 10/99).
I wasn't assuming on the new trade lines, only adding that line to point out that in addition to the new trade lines, there was also the extra ding.
But it is true, that the payoffs may not be reported yet, and there may be too many open accouts being reported.
I used 647 as the mortage amount because it was the median one from the 3 my mortage processor read off to me. But all three were within a 30 point spread.
I did also omit the one additional inquiry for a different loan (declined, that is why I got the new Experian in December)
Even with the double entries on the loans, it still seems like one large drop. I was just wondering which one hurt worse the new lines or the moving? |
| Voigtkampff | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 02:04 pm
I've been telling friends about Eloan, and I am suprised by one friend's score. She has a 799, and has never had a mortgage or car loan. In fact no installment loans ever. That's higher than my SAT score. Math and verbal combined. Was I mistaken to think that without some installment history, a person cannot really establish credit? |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 03:28 pm
I'm wondering if E-loan's service is working out all that usefully. We now have on this thread a score lower than we would have expected, and one higher than we would have expected. This suggests to me that getting the score without getting the whole report, plus the reason codes, is just another way for us to play speculation games until we drop.
Here's my theory about Voightkampff's friend: we all know that lots of people get screwed on their credit scores and reports because their relatives' or someone else's bad credit keeps popping up. Maybe V's friend is the first known case of someone winning the lottery with this problem . . .
Seriously. I'm surprised to see a score that high with only revolving balances. |
| Sean (Sean) | Wednesday, March 01, 2000 - 04:44 pm
Fair Isaac said that getting a person getting their own score isn't that helpful. Often it is just confusing. It would seem that they are right.
If eLoan got my score from Experian they didn't put a query on my Experian credit profile. I think they may have used Equifax. |
| Anonymous | Thursday, March 02, 2000 - 06:16 am
I don't agree, Sean. I speculate that just having a score, without a report and reason codes to go with it, is confusing. But Fair, Isaac is saying that getting a report and reason codes WITH a score "isn't helpful." Big difference.
I also speculate that some of our confusion is an artifact not of some inevitable inability of consumers to understand credit issues, but rather of the historical secrecy promoted by Fair, Isaac and others. For instance, why does Don here seem to think that inquiries and an address change would have a huge negative impact on his credit score? Is it because a lot of people, on forums like this and elsewhere, fixate on issues such as inquiries and length of time at address? I expect so. Why do people fixate on these issues? Because they seem so unfair, and because FICO has never been willing to explain just how much they matter. In the face of such secrecy, people can tend to get a little paranoid.
The problem with Fair, Isaac's "don't confuse the consumer with facts" argument is, precisely, as I think this thread shows, we do want more than just our numerical score. We want to know how these numbers are calculated. Until they release some serious straight dope about their methodology, we'll all be able to do no more than try to read the tea leaves. |
