Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Wednesday, November 24, 1999 - 06:41 am  In a few months I'm planning to buy a car. I've made sure that I have rectified my credit problems as best as I can and have made timely payments on all my bills for the past 6 months and plan to continue to do so. Monday I'm dropping $4000 on two separate cards to bring their balances down. I'm going to still have 5 accounts outstanding with balances, two of which are over $1400 and three that are $800, $680, and $400. My question is, in reference to getting my credit checked for the car, will it be better over these next few months to pay down the higher balances substantially and remain with many small balance credit cards or attack the small balances and remain with two large outstanding balances going into the car purchase? I'm trying to think of the best way to reflect my credit report when the approval process comes about. Thanks in advance for your suggestions!
|
| | Wednesday, November 24, 1999 - 10:35 am It's not good to have "too many cards with balances" although exactly how many is too many is uncertain. But one thing is for certain, having 5 out of 5 cards with balances is too many. Suggest you pay at least one of them off entirely.
|
| | Saturday, November 27, 1999 - 01:49 am Always pay off as many accounts as possible. Keep in mind some creditors take into account balances of zero, that are available, into the computation of debt to income ratio. http://www.creditsense.com
|
| | Saturday, November 27, 1999 - 06:19 am How can only SOME creditors consider having too much credit available (account balances of zero). Does that mean that it is considered separately from FICO scores? Aren't debt to income ratios considered primarily in mortgage loan applications?
|
| | Sunday, November 28, 1999 - 07:06 am Debt to income ratios are not just for mortgages. A couple of months ago, when I went to my credit union to refinance my existing car loan (with the credit I had 3 years ago when I bought it, I had to take a 23% interest rate loan), the debt to income ratio was the first thing they looked at. Don
|
| | Sunday, November 28, 1999 - 03:23 pm Sean said, "But one thing is for certain, having 5 out of 5 cards with balances is too many. Suggest you pay at least one of them off entirely. " Sean, please give us a link to an Internet page that supports your suggestion, or the name of a written document which does so. Creditworks said, "Always pay off as many accounts as possible. Keep in mind some creditors take into account balances of zero, that are available, into the computation of debt to income ratio." Creditworks, how will that affect the credit score? Boo on Bad credit: unfortunately, you have no right to the score, or to the four reasons given with the widely used "broad-based risk" "credit bureau score" that the score is not higher. Find a car finance person willing to give you the scores and reasons, and take action (educated guesses in the case of number of credit cards and balance compared to limits) based on the reasons.
|
| | Sunday, November 28, 1999 - 09:00 pm Greg Fisher-- What scores? I'm confused. I haven't been turned down for anything. I'm trying to find out what the best strategic approach to take is. Also, as aforementioned, having 0 balances is bad? Should I cancel those cards then after I pay them off?
|
| | Sunday, November 28, 1999 - 10:18 pm Boo on Bad Credit: Credit scores-- numbers representing your credit usage habits-- may be developed from the data about you the credit reporting agencies have gathered. However, problems exist in the practice. For instance, one of the top reasons your score may be lower than it could be is that you have the wrong number of credit cards. But, if you ask the credit reporting agencies (national credit bureaus) what the right number of cards is, they cannot tell you: they can say you have too few or too many, but don't know the right number. See http://creditscoring.com for my attempts to get an answer to that question. I have a newspaper advertisement clipping which gives required "Beacon" scores of 690 and 700 for particular lease programs. Fall under those limits and you get less favorable terms-- or maybe even no terms. Given that "Number of established accounts" is a possible reason the score is not higher, cancelling the cards may not be the right move-- then, again, it might be. There are no answers to your questions; that's the system, amazing as it may seem.
|
| | Monday, November 29, 1999 - 06:43 pm Greg: Pursuant to your request check out http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/19981204b.asp and the following quote (emphasis added) "Also telling is the fact that all trade lines have balances. This profile, along with the short file history, strongly contributes to the high-risk ranking." How many times have I posted that link since I started posting here, Greg? Maybe eventually you'll wander over and look at it? Or do you think I'm just going too far out on a limb to recommend that a person not carry balances on every credit card they own? Please also inform me where I can find a link to this url from http://creditscoring.com/
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 05:30 am Sean: The link to your little table from http://creditscoring.com is from what the authors refer to as the "Main story" at http://creditscoring.com/pages/bigmeeting.htm#rail But you are acting like I have some obligation to make the web site an encyclopedia of credit scoring. I'm shooting more for The Jokebook of Credit Scoring. Maybe a better question to ask, if we are to assume that the world is supposed to be as righteous and just as you wish it would be, is "where is the link from Fair, Isaac's site?" Or, "where is the link to the reason codes from Fair, Isaac's site?" I wasted my time in going to the link you provided and conclude that it is not sufficient evidence for you to make the original suggestion. It may, or may not, be correct. One of the points of creditscoring.com is that there is a cacaphony of information about scoring-- and it is anybody's guess how much of it is correct. Your post is yet another example. The list of reason codes you used (then discredited when I used it) to back up your theory in another thread is another example. A reasons you, in another post, claimed a score could be lower: - Too few accounts currently paid as agreed - Lack of recent bank revolving information - Too few accounts currently paid as agreed Any of those could be negatively affected by your suggestion which uses a theory based on a single example of a single credit report. I do not know how many times you have posted the link. You should tell us. In fact, you should get your own web site and television show. In which of the ten scorecards do the two examples lie? If the scorecard changes based on the move you suggest, could their score then be lower because they are now scored on a different basis? It is always o.k. to say you don't know.
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 07:56 am Greg: That's amazing. I point you to a site that shows that four out of four credit cards is too many cards with balances, but the guy above has five cards out of five with balances and that could be ok? Also, I think you have a mistaken idea of how scorecards work. Do you think in one scorecard it's ok to be maxed on credit cards but in a different scorecard being maxed out is a positive trait? Do you suppose that one one scorecard being late on making your payments is bad, but on another one it's good? Why, then, do you suppose that having too many cards with balances is good on one scorecard and bad on another?
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 09:19 am Sean: Your world is crashing down around you. You have no way of knowing what you suggested is correct any more than you know what I had for breakfast. And, there are no answers to your most recent questions about scorecards because the credit reporting agencies have not released them to the public. But perhaps you know something, through clairvoyance, nobody else does. Please, tell us! What little Fair, Isaac reveals about "scorecards" on the Internet is at http://www.fairisaac.com/servlet/SiteDriver/Content/1007 where they state "What seems fair varies from person to person, so we know we can't meet everyone's expectations all the time." They also say, "Legislators and regulators look for fair lending. The U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act governs much of what we do. The word itself even appears in our name, thanks to cofounder William Fair [oh, brother]. "But fairness can't be measured to everyone's satisfaction." Is that a LULU or what? These guys are getting ready for the big investigation of their practices and it should be a real hoot. I'll jump in your little logic game: From the link you gave it says, "Most lenders would agree that this profile represents a high level of risk. First, one of the bankcards was delinquent the last time it was reported. Although the delinquency is minor -- only a 30-day rating -- it points to potential risk, given that the file history is quite short. The ratio of balances to high credit is also indicative of significant risk. The balances are quite large relative to their high credit amounts and the amount of time the accounts have been open. Also telling is the fact that all trade lines have balances. This profile, along with the short file history, strongly contributes to the high-risk ranking." It mentions a short file history twice; making an account balance zero won't help that. It says the fact that all the trade lines have balances is "telling." "Telling" of what? What a conveniently nebulous statement. Where, exactly, does it say "Anybody with five cards out of five with balances will be scored negatively"? Your argument is mere rhetoric. Respond with some facts next time. By the way, I see in your errant posts that you are still using that link to http://www.advantagecredit.com/creditreporting/adverse_reason_codes.htm , you know-- that one that you are allowed to use to make a point but I am not because you say the information is incorrect? What's up with that? http://www.bayhouse.com/discus/messages/4/77.html?TuesdayNovember3019990926am#POST354
|
| | Wednesday, December 01, 1999 - 04:36 pm I think the reason credit scoring is so obtuse is because they are using neural networks. These look at event history and try to match previous information to predict those events. The computers use millions of iterations of this to come up with formulas that may include your bank balance or the color of your wife's hair. The folks at Fair Isaac or wherever don't know much more about what the continuosly changing formalas are than the rest of us. At least that's my best guess after watching this stuff for several years.
|
| | Thursday, December 02, 1999 - 12:15 pm Greg: I thought we had this discussion on the adverse codes list -- weren't you going to call Fair, Isaac get the whole list, post it yourself and add a link to it? If not, then I guess we've had a misunderstanding! If you want, I'll put a copy up and upload it where you can link onto it. As for scorecards, that link you posted isn't that great of a discussion of the subject. That's more a discussion of the fact that when people say "fair" they don't mean the same thing. To one person (me, for example) fair means that if you rate everyone according to the same set of standards and those standards predict that 10% of the group will be delinquent then that's fair. To other people, however, if you take 100 random black people and 100 random white people, score them all and the black people score lower then it's automatically unfair -- even if watching the next 24 months of credit history shows that the black people have more lates than the white people. Now as for scorecards -- that Fair Isaac link isn't the best source for understanding scorecards rather the best information comes from Peter McCorkell who spoke at the FTC meeting http://creditscoring.com/pages/forumtranscript.htm about overlapping risks. As a simple explanation let's say (as a hypothetical example) that someone who's been at their job less than 2 years has a statistical 50 percent chance of becoming seriously late. Let's also say (to keep the math easy) that a person who's lived at their address less than 2 years has a statistical 50 percent chance of becoming seriously late. So what do you say about someone who has been at their job less than 2 years and has lived at their residence less than 2 years? A simple math calculation might lead you to believe the person will become seriously delinquent 75 percent of the time. That's not the case, though, because there are a lot of people who have both been at their job less than 2 years and at their residence less than 2 years (I'm paraphrasing from page 29 here). Now I'm jumping to page 49 where he gets into how these scorecards are consructed to handle overlapping risks. (all emphasis added) "...first of all it looks for the presence of serious delinquency information, either in the trade lines or in the public record part of the credit file. And so we have sort of the goods and the bads -- the previous goods and bads now separated using different scorecards, because if we used a one size fits all scoring system, anybody with any delinquency would get a terrible score. But, in fact, not everybody with a prior delinquency presents the same degree of risk, so we can do a better job." So you see, Greg -- the first thing that affects what scorecard you end up on is the presence of delinquencies on your credit profile. Let's say (I'm just speculating now) that we're going to set aside two score cards for people who have never been late, two scorecards for people with new credit and 6 scorecards for people who have some sort of delinquency. Let's say three different types of delinquencies 1) Bankruptcy 2) Serious delinquencies and 3) Minor delinquencies. So, in conclusion, although it is possible that his scorecard could change through something as minor as closing one account it's not likely and even if it does happen, it'll only change to a related scorecard. Suggest if you haven't already that you take some serious time to read over what Mr. McCorkell said at that meeting and delve into it.
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 06:23 pm Sean: You should be deeper not as wide; trying to be in so many discussions at once, you cannot keep track. Before you suggest I read Fair, Isaac’s propaganda (I was at the meeting and heard the original statements, first-hand, from which the transcript was made; the link you gave is to my web site: I converted the PDF file to HTML for you and anybody else to link to), review your own statements. In your efforts to assert your "libertarian" plan in as many places as possible here on this site (one of the places you term with others as "launching grounds for increased government regulation") you are losing track of your conversations and misrepresenting them. I do not have a problem with your recall about your statements-- it only creates hilarious buffoonery-- but must stop you when you talk about what I may or may not have said. No, I was never "going to call Fair, Isaac[,] get the whole list, post it… and add a link to it." You made that suggestion in a desperate, last chance, face-saving, ill-fated attempt to regain control over an argument you lost (see http://www.bayhouse.com/discus/messages/4/28.html?TuesdayNovember3019990657am#POST234). I have done enough to educate the consumer and the industry on this ridiculous, cornball issue. Indeed, you just made another quote citing my web site, The Credit Scoring Site (http://creditscoring.com), not the credit reporting agencies’ sites, and not Fair, Isaac’s site, as your source. As I stated previously, in response to one of your missives (and in like manner on creditscoring.com) "They could easily resolve arguments like this by posting this highly informative document to which you refer on the Internet. I have even goaded them, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the credit reporting agencies on the page http://www.creditscoring.com/pages/forumtranscript.htm saying, ‘Links from this page to the list from these credible sources will be provided when they get around to publishing it on the Internet. We can rank them in chronological order.’ This follows the credit reporting agencies' association's statement in front of the assembled FTC credit scoring forum that the consumer can have access to the list (it had to be dragged out of their representative-- when asked about it, his lawerly response was, ‘The list of factors that are part of-- that could be construed as a full list?’)." On November 26, I was a guest (unsolicited: they called me) for an hour on a San Francisco radio station. The topic was credit scoring. A week later, on December 3, a representative from Fair, Isaac, and one from the Associated Credit Bureaus were guests. While they were on the air, I faxed in a question about the list of reasons-- four of which are given with each credit score as why the score is not higher-- and posting the list on the Internet. Fair, Isaac’s response (referring to a document given previously to the host, containing "a list of 45 or 50" items) was, "And what you have is the list of all the potential reasons that could accompany a score going to a lender. Now, that information has been closely held by score developers, like Fair, Isaac, for a long time. We’ve-- over the last little while-- have become freer with that. We were back at a conference in Washington where I believe that was entered in the public file. It was an FTC seminar on credit scoring-- or forum." When asked about posting the reasons on their web site, he said, "It’s not up there yet. Certainly, it’s our intention to provide as much useful information as we can-- for consumers in particular, but also anyone who is interested in credit scores-- on our web site. And so, it’s a matter of time before that gets up there." We are still waiting. While waiting, I was interviewed (unsolicited: they called me) for another two newspaper stories which ran November 30. Even if I were to post the reasons, I would not be allowed to refer to them because in your universe we are not allowed to quote things we post on our own web sites. You admonished another contributor, saying, "I am not impressed with you claiming one thing and then posting a link to your own site as ‘proof’ that you are right. Should I quote myself as ‘proof’ that I am right? "I think not, instead I choose to quote the Federal Trade Commission's on the matter (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm). I suggest you familiarize yourself with these letters, Kristy. They're quite helpful. I should also like to point out that your link (above) does not lead to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but rather the appropriate section of the FCRA can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#605" (see http://www.bayhouse.com/discus/messages/4/56.html?WednesdayDecember119990656pm#POST268). So, methinks not, too. Let’s all just wait the "matter of time" to which Fair, Isaac is referring; this is high drama. Links I give are to show the lack of information forthcoming from the esteemed-- indeed, the sole-controlling-- credit scoring firm of credit bureau scores. And remember, before, you feared legal repercussions when you said, "I have a fax right here in my hand from Fair Isaac that specifically and explicitly states that age is not a factor. You can get this fax yourself by calling the Fair Isaac Scores Helpline (800) 777-2066 and selecting Option 2. I'd fax this baby to you myself but it says right on the cover of it: "...you are hereby notified that ... dissemination, distribution or copying of this telecopy is strictly prohibited." (By Sean on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 02:09, pm, http://www.creditinfocenter.com/discus/messages/46/58.html?FridayNovember1919990857am). Stop pretending. Your latest trip into Fantasyland, conjecturing on the use of scorecards, is another waste of time. I am not here to try to reverse-engineer their silly "algorithm" (which I am willing to bet is less complex than they would have us believe) any more than I am here to help them unweave their tapestry of pseudo-intellectual "fairness," or to figure pi to the one-millionth place. Mr. McCorkell was all over the board with his remarks at the forum in July, and I still cannot even get my score. As for your stereotyping remark concerning the relative propensity of two races to pay their debts, you (and Fair, Isaac’s McCorkell who said, "Minorities and low-income borrowers present a slightly larger risk." (source: MSN MoneyCentral, http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/banking/credit/1340.asp)), are on your own.
|
| | Monday, December 13, 1999 - 09:38 am Greg: Gee, I wasn't aware that we were in an "argument" that constituted "winners" and "losers" here I thought we were trying to both learn more about scoring and credit issues as well as being available to people who want to ask questions. My main goal here is to get a high FICO score, lower my interest rates, and get rich in real estate. Nothing more. If I wanted to bust your chops here I could point out that earlier you said the point of your site wasn't to educate people on scores, but to make fun of the whole scoring process. Yet above you say that: "I have done enough to educate the consumer and the industry on this ridiculous, cornball issue." So which is it, is your site comedic relief on the scoring issue or an honest attempt to educate consumers on an important issue of our time? Since you didn't say anything about scoring in your post, there's not much for me to reply. Thanks for the link tho always appreciate the information.
|
| | Tuesday, December 14, 1999 - 07:48 pm Sean: You couldn't "bust" my "chops" because I didn't make such a statement [readers scroll up]. Here, try a computer exercise: cut, paste -- cut, paste -- cut, paste. See? That way you avoid falsificaton... and looking bad. You are shameless. Time after time, I correct statements you make about me. Every time you misquote me, you look worse. Your responses keep getting weaker and weaker, but you are compelled to continue. While the reason I give responses is to make sure any other readers don't walk away with the wrong idea over what you are saying, this is great sport, too. In your most recent laughable foray, you try to use that lame trick again: trying to give me two choices in answering a question, neither of which are true. I know as much about credit scoring as I need to know for now: that those in charge treat it like a large rat study, that one cannot get his score, that those contolling the score dribble information about the process in infinitesimally small doses even while federal legislation to release the score is staring them in the face, and that you and others give advice but do not know if it is true or not. Rather than suggesting to the person who asked the original question that he try to obtain the four reasons that state why his score is not higher-- then act on that-- you shot from the hip and gave the advice, "having 5 out of 5 cards with balances is too many." Don't try to look so smart. And, try to make your posts harder to dispel. Any idiot can look above and see that I was asking questions and trying to get clarification of your wild statement when you attacked (you'll have fun with that word) with that business about "How many times have I posted that link since I started posting here, Greg? Maybe eventually you'll wander over and look at it? Or do you think I'm just going too far out on a limb to recommend that a person not carry balances on every credit card they own? Please also inform me where I can find a link to this url from http://creditscoring.com/" I just told you about that in the last post: you are losing track of what you said. You can call the argument whatever you want. But, ohhhhh-kaaaaayyy, Sean anonymous255@yahoo.com, I will play along with your trite rhetorical game again. You asked, "So which is it, is your site comedic relief on the scoring issue or an honest attempt to educate consumers on an important issue of our time?" It is both. That's education. That's entertainment. Heck, you're from El Lay, you should know about that.
|
| | Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 07:05 am Greg: Let's cut to the brass tacks. Have you ever seen your own credit score and the reasons you didn't score higher? How many other people's credit scores have you pulled and seen the reasons they didn't score higher? I have a person's credit profile in front of me right this second and I can tell you that although she has 61% of her revolving trade line credit free (that's 39% used for the mathematically challenged) she lost points because, "Proportion of balances to credit limits is too high on bank revolving or other revolving accounts." Now riddle me this, Batman. If I had posted something saying, "You definitely need to owe LESS than 39% in order to get an ideal FICO II(tm) score" what would you have said? I already know what you would have said, you'd have said: "Sean, please give us a link to an Internet page that supports your suggestion, or the name of a written document which does so" (see above). What would you have said if I posted that denial code 98 was "Length of time consumer finance company loans have been established" for credit scores pulled through Trans Union but couldn't come up with an internet link for you? I'm sure you would've claimed that it was a "...laughable foray" and would have insisted that I defer to the "wisdom" of someone (you) that probably hasn't pulled a single credit report on a potential borrower in his life. I know more than you about what makes credit scores work, Greg, for the simple reason that I pull more credit profiles and make actual money-on-the-line underwriting decisions not with some big corporation's millions to loan but with my own hard-earned cash.
|
| | Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 11:14 pm Sean: I'm actually embarassed for you. But, OK, let's knock 'em out, one by one. Do you mean get down to brass tacks, or cut to the chase? You can bet I'll get to the bottom dollar of it. You asked about me seeing my and others' credit reports. Perhaps you should ask the same question of the congressman who sponsored the legislation that would release the score to consumers. If he hasn't looked at as many as you, is he off in using simple logic and referring to a smaller number of samples in writing the bill? If I access high numbers of credit reports, some, or none, I wouldn't claim that I did; I won't be tipping my hand. Keep guessing. For over a year I asked a simple question of those who own the trademarks about their respective credit scores: "To attain the highest credit score (in the score Equifax produces for conventional mortgage loan underwriting, the 'Beacon'), how can I tell what is the right 'number of bank revolving accounts'?" I also asked, "Can you, at least, tell me how I can tell how many to add or subtract to avoid the Beacon score giving that as a reason the score is not higher? If it says, 'too few,' do I add one? More than one?" The device was giving them the chance to answer an isolated question about one single aspect of scoring, and not to let them change the subject. They are stumped. The proportion issue is another ball of wax. I'd like an answer to my first question before I let you or them muddle the conversation with a nonsequitur. On a more general issue, when you said I would insist that you defer to my wisdom, you are only hoping. Quote an example of me doing that, or stop saying it. Wisdom doesn't have anything to do with the credit bureaus not posting the reasons list. By the way, just for kicks, what is Reason Statement 72?
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 04:25 am Greg: I read the correspondence from Equifax (posted on your web site) regarding the Beacon score with interest. I thought they were far more polite with you than you really deserved and that their answers were all very reasonable. Something along the lines of: Gee, I don't know how many revolving accounts is the right number and, come to think of it, if I did know, I'd go right out and get the right number of revolving accounts. I find it interesting that these same questions weren't posed to someone at Fair, Isaac & Company or, at least, I haven't found the correspondence on your web site where you detail your long conversation with them regarding the right number of revolving accounts. Where would I find that correspondence? As for the Congressmen who is sponsoring the bill all I have to say to him is, "What clause of the United States constitution gives you the authority to enact such legislation?" And I'm sure if I asked him that, we'd all find he hadn't even devoted one minute of thought to the issue of whether or not he has the authority to do what he proposes. And tell me this, Greg, what would you do if you had gotten answers to those questions and Equifax had told you the right number was 6, Experian told you the right number was 5 and Trans Union told you the right number was 3-4? Or had you even considered that the "right" number for one credit bureau may not be the right number for all the others?
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 06:56 am Sean: Aren't you tired of being wrong every time? On exactly the same page to which you refer, Equifax stated, "There is no right or wrong number of revolving bank accounts or any other type of accounts." But they can tell a mortgage banker through their reason statement that there are "Too many bank or national revolving accounts." A fine state of affairs: they can say I have too many, but when I ask how many to have, they don't know. You would think these geniuses would have thought this out. They also said, "A highest score does not exist." Of course it does. Somebody has it; there are not an infinite number of people in the population. Later they said, "The highest score in numbers for Beacon is about 850. We are unable to advise you on what to do to increase your Beacon score." That's not very polite. The Fair, Isaac monopoly on credit bureau scores is not lost on me. However, they don't distribute the scores, and only play the part of the hired expert for the bureaus. It isn't Fair, Isaac who is telling me what is wrong with my score, and quoting their web site FAQ: "Who calculates credit scores? When a lender requests your score, it is calculated by a computer in your bank or credit bureau." So, the bank or credit bureau, not the highly-esteemed, secretive Fair, Isaac is responsible. It's the gun user vs. gun maker argument. They made the score, but the credit bureaus make the statement. I can't fight all the battles, so I chose as my opponents those with whom I come in direct contact. They make the statements about me and other consumers, not Fair, Isaac. If the bureaus fired Fair, Isaac, and I was using arguments I had had with Fair, Iassc, I would have to start all over again. Unfortunately for Fair, Isaac, their desire to remain in the background has backfired, as I knew it eventually would. I'm just letting them have it their way, and they keep surprising me with their gaffes which they make with no assistance from me, whatsoever. I have a greater effect by leaving them alone. I just watch them try to act as authoritative spokesmen and look terrible doing it; their unsolicited statements are my best tool. As I told you before, they make their case perfectly clear on their site; there's no more for me to ask. I did, however, stand up and ask five questions-- at the credit scoring forum in Washington hosted by a federal agency-- one of which was the one about the number of credit cards. They didn't answer them. I offered anybody in that room the list of 25 questions (including the 5 I asked verbally) I posted on creditscoring.com. The FTC requested a copy and I gave it to them. What do I have to do, send out smoke signals? Hire a band? Sign language? Make a web site dedicated entirely to that one question? Wait, I did that. What does it take for them to react? If my question is so easily dismissed, they could just answer it and make me go away. Not happening is it? Their most recent mistake: in a broadcast interview, they said, "The Fair, Isaac credit score doesn't care how many credit cards you have, in essence. What we're more concerned about is whether you've been paying the bills on time and what your total outstanding debt is." Your last question about what I would do if they told me the right number of credit cards to have will never be presented to me. Further, you don't know if those would be the numbers. You can live in your world of ideals and ask millions of speculative questions like that, with an infinite number of iterations, but I would prefer to deal with reality. Stop trying to change the subject. But to humor you, I'll play dumb and say I don't know what I would do. As the expert who said, "I know more than you about what makes credit scores work," what do you suggest? A bit impossible to answer isn't it? Are you finally seeing the light? The notion of asking the number of credit cards question (followed by their inability to answer it) is only that it is one way to force them to release the score to consumers. They're out of control, can't explain their reason statement, and therefore don't have any business keeping the score secret. You didn't answer my question: what is Reason Statement 72? I think that's funny.
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 02:45 pm Greg: In response to your point that "There is no right or wrong number of accounts" (according to Equifax) that's just a semantic mix-up between you and them revolving around your use of the word "right." Your question is much better and much more understandable when you phrase it, "How many revolving accounts should I have in order to get the highest score for that factor on the Beacon model?" As for adverse action code 72 there is no such code. The codes (at least on TU Fair Isaac) go from 00-42, 50, 56 and 97-99. These codes, as well as their exact wording come at the end of credit reports under the heading "Decoding for TU Fair Isaac Factors." Of special interest is code 00 which is "No adverse factor." The reason I didn't answer on reason 72 before is because I wrote my first response around 6am and I wasn't at work yet. I keep all my documentation at work. While Equifax is correct there's no hard and fast number for the "right" number of revolving accounts that answer is hardly helpful. I think a little common sense can tell anyone that a 70-year old with a 50-year credit history that owns 10 apartment buildings with mortgages on all of them may have a different "right" number than an 18-year old with who got his first credit card a month ago. And when you counter that with the thought that you'll show them your credit profile and they'll tell you the right number for you the real reasons come out. They don't really know, they don't really want to do it for you, they certainly won't go through that much work for free and they fear they might get sued by Fair, Isaac & Company, Inc. Is that really so surprising? Finally, in response to your "Aren't you tired of being wrong every time?" question I can only respond, "aren't you ever going to stop beating your wife?"
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 09:08 pm Sean: Hey, that's a real hoot. I talk about the issue and you equate it to getting personal. The difference is that abusive spouses don't leave evidence that can convict them. Repeat this: CNTRL+C, CNTRL+V. CNTRL+C, CNTRL+V. CNTRL+C, CNTRL+V. Copy, paste. Copy, paste. Copy, paste. Now keep saying that while I respond. Here's where you were wrong: 1) November 24 - "But one thing is for certain, having 5 out of 5 cards with balances is too many. Suggest you pay at least one of them off entirely. " You didn't even ask for the reason codes before making your suggestion. And you have no idea (or proof) that five is too many. You are guessing. 2) November 29 - In some tit-for-tat challenge after I requested you footnote your material, you said, "Please also inform me where I can find a link to this url from http://creditscoring.com/" I pointed out that was three clicks from the home page. 3) December 2 - You said, "I thought we had this discussion on the adverse codes list -- weren't you going to call Fair, Isaac get the whole list, post it yourself and add a link to it? If not, then I guess we've had a misunderstanding!" I never said I was going to call them, or do anything else of the kind. 4) December 13 - You said, "If I wanted to bust your chops here I could point out that earlier you said the point of your site wasn't to educate people on scores, but to make fun of the whole scoring process." Never did I say that the point was not to educate. Now, if I goofed like you did on those occasions, I would be crucified because I own the url creditscoring.com. Still copying and pasting? Here's what you missed: I asked Equifax, "To attain the highest credit score (in the score Equifax produces for conventional mortgage loan underwriting, the "Beacon"), how can I tell what is the right 'number of revolving bank accounts'?" Now that wasn't so hard, was it? You could have copied that question (asked right before their response you quoted). You must have been looking right at it to be able to quote the word "right"... you could have copied the entire question. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new Short Quote Record (one word). We'll let the readers decide if there is some "semantic" mix up. That's the way a lot of debates end up, don't they? Just forget the facts and the subject, and say something about the other side not presenting their argument well. OK. Right. Semantics. Got it. Why don't you throw in the "out of context" argument while you're at it? That one is good for some milage. No #72? How about that. No 60, 80 or 90 either, huh? But there is a 98. Ouch. I wonder what all that means. You said, "I think a little common sense can tell anyone that a 70-year old with a 50-year credit history that owns 10 apartment buildings with mortgages on all of them may have a different "right" number than an 18-year old with who got his first credit card a month ago." So there he is on the firing line with two human beings. What is the mortgage banker supposed to do: eyeball their credit reports and inhale their essence, then turn on his supernatural voodoo and tell them how many cards each should have? Indeed, the issue is mired in semantics. No, it's not surprising that I cannot get an answer from either them... or you, which is the point. You have no way of knowing that "one thing is for certain, having 5 out of 5 cards with balances is too many."
|
| | Friday, December 17, 1999 - 04:35 am Greg asked Equifax, "To attain the highest credit score (in the score Equifax produces for conventional mortgage loan underwriting, the "Beacon"), how can I tell what is the right 'number of revolving bank accounts'?" You see, Greg, it's not a test. There are no right and wrong answers. That's why your question, although clear to you, raises knee-jerk defenses in every person that deals with educating the public on credit scoring. Much better than than the word "right" are words like best, ideal or optimum. Suggest that, in the future, you be considerably more careful when choosing your words. Also I'm surprised that you didn't find the answers to your questions on your own site. (see http://www.creditscoring.com/letters/equifax.htm) Greg asked, "If a reason code says that I have two few or two many bank revolving accounts, how can I tell how many to add or subtract to avoid having that as a reason the score is not higher?" I would say, Greg, that if a reason code said you had two few or two many that two would be the number to add or subtract. Suggest you also visit http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/19981204b.asp
|
| | Friday, December 17, 1999 - 06:39 pm Sean: Huh? OK. If you say so. Here goes. Greg, in the future, be considerably more careful when choosing your words. Greg, also visit http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/19981204b.asp.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |