     eddie cash | Monday, November 15, 1999 - 07:13 am 
Again my question still stands, what am i to do about getting positive information reported on my credit report that a company will not provide to the reporting agencies? Is this not illegal? Plus how do i correct 1)A judgement i know nothing about from a bail bondsman 2)GTE saying that i had a cellular phone bill when i asked them to have it cut off because it had been stolen, yet obviously they did not 3)negative inquiries that i have no idea where they came from or how to contact the companies that did them. Thanks for your website and everyone's support and help.
ps As an addition to "my opinion" i believe at the rate of technology advancement we are all doomed. Seems the more we "evolve" the more corrupt and destructible things seem to become in this world, you hear it everyday on the news. Computers which have given light to a whole new era of crime, desception, spam and corruption have only begun to negatively impact our lives with credit reporting, scores and millions of other things. My concern and should everyone's, what next. It is a scary thought but have you ever seen Terminator?
Thanx
cd |
| voigtkampff | Monday, November 15, 1999 - 12:20 pm
I can't believe that failure to report positive info is illegal. I would have to see proof. I have never researched it but I see an analogy. If someone makes a oral/written publication of false statements about me, I can sue for slander or libel. We have all heard about this. But has anyone ever heard of a lawsuit against someone for failure to publish flattering rumors? Silly example, I know. Whether the statements are about reputation or credit, isn't it the same? As far as the judgment, it was probably against someone with a similar name. Hopefully, the court records can be used to prove to the credit reporting agency that you are not the same person. With that you can use the standard FCRA methods for disputing the accuracy of reporting that judgment on your report. If the bail bondsman is not helpful, try the underwriting insurance company for the bond (I think that any collateral, such as a judgment on a defaulted bond, is held in trust for the insurance company). As far as the celphone, that seems less simple because it may be an accurately reported debt. Was there a contract that you breached? The contract might not acknowledge an oral cancellation of liability. As far as the inquiries, those are never good, but I am repeatedly told that they NOT do as much damage as people say after they are 6 months old, and anyway they completely drop off after 2 years, so it might not be worth the effort to dispute them. Also I am advised that not all inquiries are counted against you by FICO. Pre-approval inquries and account maintenance inquiries by existing creditors look scary but do nothing. Can anyone confirm the accuracy of my statements? |
| holly | Tuesday, November 16, 1999 - 11:48 am
"Pre-approval" inquires codes as PRM for promotional and I believe are not counted against you and are never seen by anyone requesting your report. Although that is what the credit bureaus and Fair Isaac say but it's not like their sharing the credit scoring formula with the lay people. I personally recommend taking the bureaus up on their offer to have your name removed from any pre-screening programs but that is your perogative. The same is true for existing creditors who are "maintaining" your accounts. Someone else may know more or have some other insight.
Just as an aside--how funny is this? The people who calculate our score are the ones telling us these inquires don't affect our score? There is no outside validation of what they are saying, is there? There is no way to know for sure. This is precisely why a credit score should be part of the report. I know Christine has given up on the system but for the rest of us still trying to make it work: please write, email, fax or call your reps and tell them to support Cannon's (UTAH) Fair Credit Full Disclosure Act. All it takes is a handful of personal requests from constituents to get Congress to care. |
| Robert Bielak | Monday, November 22, 1999 - 08:06 am
Eddie: Companies are NOT required to report ANYTHING to the credit bureaus. They are only required to report CORRECT information IF THEY CHOOSE to report AT ALL. You can't force them to report because it's not a free service to the lender - they pay for the service, similar to a magazine subscription, for the priviledge of using the bureau(s) - whichever combination of the three that each company chooses to use (one, two or maybe all three). You can't force a company to pay for a service if it chooses not to use it (they also must pay in order to be able to 'check' your credit to use the info to decide if they're going to extend credit to you). Regarding the judgement: Dispute it if it's not yours (or if it is). 99.9% of the time (other than bankruptcies), the credit bureaus don't even bother verifying a public record. And if it's not your's, then just dispute it and it will be taken care of. Negative inquiries: simply dispute them and state that you never authorized "insert company here" company to access your credit file. It's against the law, you know ... :) |
| Robert Bielak | Monday, November 22, 1999 - 08:14 am
Holly: You said:
>> This is precisely why a credit score should be part of the report.
The problem is that there is not such thing as "your credit score". Simply put, there are many different models utilized for calculating your score that you never know which one a lender is going to use. Just because it's based on Fair, Isaac's model doesn't mean it IS the FI model. Each lender sets it's own guidelines for lending, which means it's purchased version of the model is, more than likely, going to differ from the next lender's algorithm. They might buy it from the credit bureau(s). They might hire a third party vendor to pull your report, run it through their own modified version of the model. They may do it themselves, in house. They may have an automated system, again customized for their taste, doing instant approvals. If you publish a score (say, FICO from Experian based on the Fair, Isaac model), a borrower will get a different score from a lender that does NOT buy Experian's FICO score generation, and the borrower will wonder what's wrong - why doesn't his score(s) match? I imagine the confusion.
Lenders pay (extra) for score generation, no matter who they buy it from. It's no different than you being able to choose what options that you want on your new car. You want AC? That's extra. They want a credit score? They pay extra. But there's no "one" model used to generate that score. There are thousands, depending upon the lender. |
| voigtkampff | Monday, November 22, 1999 - 10:34 am
Robert, I have a bad habit of saying that "I think" or "I read", and I hate it too. Forgetfulness stinks, or so I've heard. But I am pretty certain that it was Fair Isaacs own website where it said there was uniformity between the scores generated by each bureau because of the same or similar underlying model. It might have been the Associated Credit Bureaus, but whatever source, this statement was being used to justify the use of credit scoring.
I have also repeatedly read that (as you say) each lender has their own guidelines. But the way that I have been reading that is to assume that differing guidelines means that each lender has a different minimum credit score that they will accept. What you suggest is far more confusing and would make it difficult for even an experienced person to figure out the significance of a score.
Could you explain again how the underlying algorythm of the model can vary from lender to lender? |
| Robert Bielak | Monday, November 29, 1999 - 09:26 am
Explaining the changes from one lender's method to another's is quite simple:
Lender A puts a higher priority on bankruptcies, regardless of age, but a lower priority on collection accounts. So his model is modified so that your score gets reduced a greater amount for a BK, but only a few points for a collection.
Lender B, on the other hand, decides that a four or five year old BK isn't a very good indicator of what a potential lender's bill paying habits are TODAY. This lender is only concerned with, say, a BK in the past 2 years. In addition, this lender wants a recent collection account, say 2 years or newer, to be a SERIOUS ding to your score. Therefore, he has his model adjusted to really whack your score for the collection accounts, but only knocks you a few points for the OLD bankruptcy.
This way, different lenders that have differing views on what makes a bad borrower bad and a good borrower good can adjust their models' algorithm (and it's spelled with an 'i', not a 'y' ... :)) to reflect their own standards, NOT some OTHER lender's standards. |
| holly | Monday, November 29, 1999 - 10:36 am
I think the y was a typo.
And the reality is that all 3 bureaus have a score generation algorithm which they use to score us and then sell that score. I want to know what my Beacon from Equifax is and I want to know what my FICO from Experian is and I want to know what my Empirica from Trans Union is as they maintain it. Yes, people who are doing the loans have an underwriting procedure that may supercede the credit bureau's score to the point of rejection but the credit bureaus do score us and we have a right to know that score. If other factors outside the credit bureau's score cause a rejection or a higher interest rate than the score would suggest, than the lender can let you know what those factors were in your rejection letter. |
| Robert Bielak | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 05:14 am
Holly -
>> And the reality is that all 3 bureaus have a score generation algorithm
>> which they use to score us and then sell that score.
You're almost there. Yes, your statement is correct, but the important fact here is that Big 3 are not the ONLY (emphasis on ONLY) ones who generate and sell scores !!!
Other companies pay for the priviledge to access the raw data (no score generation), and they THEY
generate a score for the lender that's paying them to do this. Most of the DO base their programs on the Big 3's models, but they CHANGE the algorithm in order to highlight what's important to their customer: the LENDER that's paying them to do this.
Beacon, FICO and Empirica are NOT the ONLY three (untouched models) used to generate a score! Lenders pay for the right to use the model as a baseline, and then modify the algorithm used BY that model. Other companies pay for the right to use the model, modify it, and then offer their custom services to lenders. There are not JUST THREE SCORES and JUST THREE COMPANIES (the credit reporting bureaus) that generate the ACTUAL SCORE.
The Big 3 could, I agree, provide THEIR scores, but it would be pointless because the lender you go through might not use the Big 3's untouched model. They may hire another company. The lender I recently went through uses CRIS, a third party company that pulls the raw data and pushes it through their customized models and generates a score AFTER the get the data from the credit bureau, not WITH the data. You see, a credit score generation is provided to a lender AT AN ADDITIONAL COST to the creditor, just like an option you choose when buying a new car. If the creditor wants to but in an AFTERMARKET radio and different tires and wheels than the dealer offers, it's the same as wanting to use a model/alogrithm from a third party vendor instead of that from the Big 3 credit reporting bureaus. |
| Anonymous | Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 04:17 am
Just a few things about credit scores and how mortgage companies use them: I just applied for an FHA mortgage and the loan officer gave me a copy of my credit report. Equifax uses Beacon, Trans Union uses Empirica and Experian uses Fair Isaac. FHA guidelines require the mortgage company to take the median score. Once everything that is needed for the loan (i.e. employment verification, bank acct info, etc.) it goes to underwriting, where an actual person(s) analyzes everything and either says yes, no or maybe (all of this according to FHA guidelines). There is an actual book the HUD people put out that is about 400 pages long that the mortgage companies must use to either approve or deny the loan. |
