Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Monday, December 06, 1999 - 08:51 pm  A study conducted by Fair Isaac, Equifax, and four national insurance companies concluded that there is a correlation between credit scores and claims frequency. An average of 10.8% out of 25,000 people with credit scores under 620 filed claims per annum, compared to 5.3% out of 25,000 people with credit scores above 849. The number of low scorers who filed claims is more than twice the number of high scorers who filed claims. The study was enough to convince insurance companies to use credit scoring for auto insurance underwriting. The point that has been overlooked is this: 89.2% of the low scorers did not file claims. Why should the actions of a small minority (10.8%) be viewed as more significant than the actions of the vast majority (89.2%) within that group? Somehow, the credit score has become more important than driving record and claims history for a large number of insurers. When credit scoring was first introduced into automobile insurance underwriting, it was a secondary factor that enabled exceptions to be made for people with marginally acceptable driving records and claims histories. Now, the applicant's driving record and claims history are not even considered if the credit score doesn't make the grade. Now, people with clean driving records and no claims are being classified as "high risk" simply because they wouldn't qualify for a Platinum Visa. Here are some real life reasons people were denied automobile insurance: 53 (-) ABSENCE OF REVOLVING CREDIT ACCOUNTS 52 (-) RECENT DELINQUENCY OR TOO FEW CURRENT ACCOUNTS 69 (-) DATE OF LAST CREDIT CHECK TOO RECENT OR UNKNOWN 59 (-) UNFAVORABLE OR UNKNOWN AMOUNT OWED ON REVOLVING ACCOUNTS 58 (-) PROPORTION OF REVOLVING BALANCES TO REVOLVING CREDIT LIMITS IS TOO HIGH, OR NO REVOLVING CREDIT ACCOUNTS 61 (-) DELINQUENCY DATE TOO RECENT OR DATE UNKNOWN 66 (-) DELINQUENCY, DEROGATORY PUBLIC RECORD OR COLLECTION Notice the word "unknown"! Notice how not having credit cards can seriously impair your "insurance score". Notice how a 30 day late pay or a collection agency account causes as much damage as a judgment, a lien, a foreclosure, a repo, or a bankruptcy. Notice that this is about rejection for automobile insurance, not credit cards or mortgages.
|
| | Tuesday, December 07, 1999 - 07:00 am I contacted Fair Isaac about insurance scoring using the information provided from the Equifax News Releases (http://www.equifax.com/about/news_releases/march96/cls03.html). They provided me some basic information about the Casualty Loss Score (CLS) claiming, among other things, that CLS had been validated by an independent consulting firm. When I attempted to determine who this independent consulting firm was I was referred to the Credit Scores Hotline where I spoke to Barry (415) 491-7140 and faxed him (415) 492-5687 the information I had and asked for more information. He knew nothing but promised to have someone get in touch with me about it and cautioned me that the most likely response I would get was that they didn't have to reveal who did the review and probably wouldn't. I encouraged him to try nevertheless. Weeks passed and again I contacted Barry asking for an update on the progress (that was Wednesday of last week). He said he was surprised no one had contacted me, and promised he'd make sure someone did. As of today no one has contacted me with any information on the CLS score nor from Fair Isaac and calls to Barry only reach his voice mail. I can provide no further information.
|
| | Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 01:24 pm Barbara and Sean, I truly appreciate your efforts, and especially your taking the time to post all the details. However, I don't doubt the study stating that people with lower Scores file more claims. 1) Low Scorers on average have less disposable income and are less educated. They are more likely to file a claim for a small amount, because they either really don't have much extra cash and/or they don't know that later they just pay higher premiums. The Low Scorers purchase insurance with lower deductibles so they can USE it when needed. I suspect that insurers actually make more money on the Low Scorers due to higher premiums to start with for the lower deductible, and then increased premiums after a claim. 2) If you make $25/hour, how many hours are you going to spend on a $200 insurance claim? As I had a claim earlier this year, I know the aggravation involved. It took over 2 hours just to initiate the claim on the phone. I spent at least 100 hours to eventually get part of my claim of less than $4,000. The amount of my claim had actually INCREASED by about 50% because they had a "pro assignment" affiliation with a shop that does INFERIOR work, took 2.5 weeks instead of the 4 to 6 day estimated completion and THEN I had to drive to the manufacturer 1,200 miles away to have the repair repaired! If I had more time, I'd sue those bastards at Allstate. They used every trick in the book. Initially they outright declined the claim until I asked for their faxed decision to give to my lawyer. Yeah, THAT's how insurance works! 3) Because insurance IS rated by claims history of ZIP CODES, poor people are punished with often MUCH higher rates to start with. And next time you drive through your local ghetto, the "bad" side of town, look at the color of their skin! Insurance companies rank right up there with the finance industry. As car insurance is MANDATED in most States, insurance greatly contributes to the redistribution of wealth. Once again the middle class and wealthy enjoy the benefit of refunds and low premiums at the expense of the poor. I wonder if the supporters of the Arian Nation realize how MUCH they got going for them? Christine
|
| | Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 01:58 pm >> Because insurance IS rated by claims history of ZIP CODES, poor people are punished with often >> MUCH higher rates to start with. And next time you drive through your local ghetto, the "bad" >> side of town, look at the color of their skin! I live in an area with more non-whites than I used to, only one year ago. My rates are lower HERE than they were back there. And guess what? It's through Allstate. >> Once again the middle class and wealthy enjoy the benefit of refunds and low premiums at the >> expense of the poor. My premium is lower because I have an excellent driving record, not because of the color of my skin. And also because the number of claims in my zip code are lower (indicating a "safer" town, both accident-wise and theft/vandalizm-wise.
|
| | Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 03:23 pm rcb: I need to clarify a few things: 1) I never said that there aren't good and safe non white neighborhoods. After all, I spent much time in San Francisco where many Asians live in great neighborhoods and are highly regarded by almost everyone. I asked you to drive through your local ghetto and look at the colors. The Caucasians in those neighborhoods are mostly disabled, vets, seniors, single parents, or otherwise disadvantaged. In San Francisco I'd like you to take a look at the Tenderloin, the Mission, the Bay View District, Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, and that area west of Van Ness with the projects (I can't recall the name off hand.) Look who lives there, and then start insurance shopping and report back. 2) You say: "... My rates are lower HERE than they were back there. ..." and then state: "My premium is lower because I have an excellent driving record, not because of the color of my skin." Your driving record became excellent because you moved to the new neighborhood? You make absolutely no sense. "And also because the number of claims in my zip code are lower (indicating a "safer" town, both accident-wise and theft/vandalizm-wise." Thank you for making my point! You are lacking the ability to follow even the most basic argument. I talk about the ghetto, you talk about your neighborhood. Are you in a ghetto? 3) A math class might improve your logic. The type of math where you learn about groups. It may surprise you, but it's possible to have 10 completely different groups, yet one member of group A is also a member of all 10 groups. That's because they intersect. However, that does NOT mean that all members of group A are also members of all 10 groups. It does not even indicate that a majority of members in group A are members of all other groups. You have to look at all groups, where they intersect, and how many members are in the intersection relative to the total number of members in group A. If you can follow this, you'll probably improve your postings greatly by taking that class. Christine
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 05:43 am My last class was "Measuring and Evaluating School Learning". Completely statistical. And they taught much more than mean, meadian, mode, correlation, variance and curves. You, in fact, didn't follow me. I was agreeing with your point but stating that it wasn't JUST the neighborhood (group) that drove my rates. I'll pay a few bucks more in one area, or a few less somewhere else, completely based on statistics of the area. BUT my rates will ALWAYS be lower than those with POOR driving records. That was the only point I was trying to make. Did you, perhaps, miss the "AND ALSO" in my post? Or perhaps you choose to break down a point into smaller points, then attack them out of context? You should lighten up. We're only having a difference of opinion here. THAT'S legal, right? :)
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 10:32 am rcb: I don't think I misquoted you. And I have no idea why you would argue something other than the topic. PLEASE DON'T! Barbara started this topic "Scoring for auto insurance." She states: "Now, the applicant's driving record and claims history are not even considered if the credit score doesn't make the grade. Now, people with clean driving records and no claims are being classified as "high risk" simply because they wouldn't qualify for a Platinum Visa." If you think it's necessary to discus whether a better driving record gives you lower rates (once you HAVE insurance) then do so. There's this button marked "New Conversation." Hit it and start one! The issue in THIS topic is that consumers either pay higher rates or are outright declined for auto insurance REGARDLESS of their driving/claims record. Both Barbara and Sean spent a lot of time researching this issue and finding FACTS. Christine
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 12:03 pm Then answer me this one: I have had sub-600 scores for the past six years. I never ONCE paid a "high" premium because my credit score was low. (I always asked my peers what they were paying). How is that possible if your "low credit scores = high insurance premium or no insurance at all" ??
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 01:55 pm RCB, here's the answer. Allstate is one of the few preferred carriers that has not yet jumped on the credit scoring bandwagon. If Allstate were to start using credit scores and your score is low, you would most likely be non-renewed or bumped into their Indemnity program. For preferred companies that use credit scoring (the majority), low credit scores equal higher rates or denials, even for drivers with no tickets, accidents, or claims in the past three, five, or even ten years.
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 03:17 pm Well I just got my auto insurance renewed. As far as I know no insurance scoring was used. I called a company in the area that bids you through hundreds of different carriers and gives you the one that gives the lowest rate. Since Christine admits that not every insurance carrier uses insurance scoring then no one gets poor rates for having a poor score unless they choose to do so. They can always get three bids (with Allstate one of them) and choose the best rate they find. It's called competition.
|
| | Monday, December 13, 1999 - 04:55 am Barbara, here's my reply. And in reference to auto insurance info, in MICHIGAN you are wrong. Maybe you meant to tell us that your story only applied to your state. Then again, nobody is going to tell YOU that you're LYING to the visitors of the forum, now are they? I am not loyal to one insurance company or another. I shop rates EVERY SIX MONTHS. I have been with six or seven different insurance companies for my autos in the past 5 years (all of them at my choice - I was NEVER denied or cancelled). State Farm, Farmer's Insurance, AAA of Michigan, Allstate are four of them that I can immediately remember. I have always had an excellent driving record. For five and a half years, up until the past 6-8 months ago, I have always had a HORRIDLY POOR credit score. I have NEVER paid "high" premiums for my automobile insurance. Again, I always compare with other peers in my circle of friends, as well as keeping track with industry news and price trends. Please explain how my six or seven DIFFERENT companies did not deny or cancel me, due to my credit scores, since Allstate is one of the "few" left that does NOT utilize credit scoring.
|
| | Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 09:19 pm RCB asked Christine on 12/12: "Or perhaps you choose to break down a point into smaller points, then attack them out of context?" RCB, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. This is exactly what you have done with my use of the word "few". I made the point that the majority of preferred auto insurance companies are now using credit scores to underwrite auto insurance. I used the word "few" in a relative sense. You jumped all over that word and still failed to prove your point. You named four insurance companies that do not use credit scoring for auto insurance. Four insurance companies is a "few", (both relative and absolute). RCB asks: "Please explain how my six or seven DIFFERENT companies did not deny or cancel me...? Was it six or was it seven? Name all of them. How does this disprove my point that the majority of preferred carriers use credit scoring for auto insurance? You named four preferred carriers that do not use credit scoring for auto insurance. Here are 16 national companies that do use credit scoring (more to follow): The Hartford Travelers State Auto American International Group (AIG) Geico Direct Progressive Preferred Great American Unitrin Security National Western Reserve Mutual Casualty Leader Preferred Reliance Direct Lightning Rod Mutual Celina Group Farmers Alliance Mutual Metropolitan Property And Casualty Nationwide
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 08:58 am Sean, on 12/7 you wrote that you contacted Fair Isaac, spoke to Barry, and asked for the name of the independent consulting firm that validated CLS scores. You wrote: "He knew nothing but promised to have someone get in touch with me about it and cautioned me that the most likely response I would get was that they didn't have to reveal who did the review and probably wouldn't." Have you received any response yet? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Why do you suppose Fair Isaac is so reluctant to disclose the name of this "independent" consulting firm? In your Dec 12 post, you wrote that people "can always get three bids (with Allstate one of them)... it's called competition." Why should people be restricted in their choices for auto insurance just because they have "too many" or "too few" revolving accounts, "too many" finance company accounts, "too many" credit checks, "insufficient" length of credit history, "too many" trade lines, etc? What kind of competition is that? I'm tired of all the vague and nondescript "reasons" for denial and I'm tired of all the secrecy and cover ups. I know I'm not the only one. Again, I ask a question that still hasn't been answered. Why should the actions of 10.8% of a group be considered more important than the actions of 89.2%? What if 5.3% of the low scorers filed claims? Would that still be enough to classify low scorers as a high risk? What is the cutoff point and why? What constitutes a meaningful correlation and why?
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 09:29 am Barbara - I'd have to dig the old policies up from four/five years go to remember the other names (I think one of them was Titan). I KNOW it was six or seven. You named 16 (AND claimed that they were national). That's 27.28% - almost a third - that do not use credit scoring for determining auto insurance premiums. Is nearly one third a "few"? National? Who in the heck is "Lighting Rod Mutual"? I quick search of Yahoo only gave me some info regarding lightnings rod for the Chinese military strategists, not any insurance company. Which leads me to ponder the validity of the other 10 or 11 "national" companies that you mentioned that I don't recognize as "national". And you call them "preferred"? Preferred by whom?
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 11:41 am Sean: When was the last time you *shopped* for insurance (or anything else) having only a pay phone available to you? rcb: please stop posting. To everybody: What percentage of 1) low scorers and 2) the general US population asks before requesting the quote whether their credit would be damaged by an inquiry and whether scoring is used to determine rates? Christine
|
| | Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 03:05 pm All: Fair Isaac contacted me today and claimed that the full text of the study could be found on http://www.naic.com/ and that the name of the company that did the study is Tillinghast. I went to the site, I searched the archives for Tillinghast and there sure are a lot of hits, apparently they're big in the insurance consulting industry. He claimed the article was entitled "Credit Reports and Insurance Underwriting." You are all welcome to look for that article on that site. I have, so far, had no success. I am anticipating another call tomorrow. I call this guy everyday and I know he's working on it. I don't have any magical answers, but I'm still digging and I'm going to find out what I can.
|
| | Friday, December 17, 1999 - 07:15 am >> rcb: please stop posting. Why?? Because I don't agree with you and Barbara? Because I don't empty my wallet for every poor loser who comes into the laundromat in their uninsured vehicle? Gheesh.
|
| | Friday, December 17, 1999 - 10:01 am rcb: It's because of those hard working human beings you call "losers" that you can enjoy tremendously CHEAP food. These people work for next to nothing, usually with no benefits, they're exposed to dangerous fertilizers and pesticides. In 1999 their drinking water in the California Central Valley repeatedly showed cancer causing chemicals that were prohibited many years ago. There is no point to discussing anything serious anymore in this Forum. It took someone like you to spoil it. I've ran this forum for a long time without EVER a SINGLE incident. You're very special, rcb. I just made arrangements for a land line over Xmas and I will move important topics such as this one into the new moderated area. Christine
|
| | Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 10:48 am On Dec 16, Sean wrote: "Fair Isaac contacted me today and claimed that the full text of the [Casualty Loss Score] study could be found on http://www.naic.com. I searched the site for "Tillinghast" and got 25 articles on workers compensation. I searched for "credit" (and) "reports" (and) "insurance" and got 19 more articles on workers comp. There is no information on that site about credit scoring for auto insurance. There is no "full text" of the Casualty Loss Score study. It's all about workers comp. Why won't any of the people who support credit scoring for auto insurance answer the following question: Why should the actions of 10.8% of a group be viewed as more important than the actions of 89.2% of that group? What if 5.3% of people with low credit scores filed claims? Would that constitute a meaningful correlation between credit scores and insurance claims? What is the cutoff point between a meaningful and an insignificant correlation? RCB, you wrote: "I'd have to dig up the old policies from four/five years ago to remember the other names. (I think one of them was Titan) I KNOW it was six or seven." RCB, you called me a liar on three separate occasions. Now you expect me to just take your word for it?? I don't think so. Start digging. Was it six or was it seven? Name all of them. How did you come up with 27.28%? Did you divide 6 by 22 and round .27272 up to .2728? How do you figure that 27.28% is "nearly a third"? It is closer to a quarter. 2.28 is closer to zero than 6.05, isn't it? I don't think 16 minus 1 equals "10 or 11". (Your mathematical skills are questionable. I hope you don't work for Fair Isaac.) You can't count companies you can't even name. Your 27.28% figure is bogus and, even if it weren't, it still wouldn't disprove my point that the majority of preferred risk auto insurance companies use credit scoring. "Preferred" is an insurance industry term. Preferred carriers insure drivers with little or no tickets, accidents, or claims (now, most of them also require an "acceptable" credit score). "High Risk" carriers generally insure drivers with major moving violations, more than one accident, more than two minor moving violations, or more than two claims in the past three years.
|
| | Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 04:42 pm Barbara said (see above) "Why should the actions of 10.8% of a group be viewed as more important than the actions of 89.2% of that group? What if 5.3% of people with low credit scores filed claims? Would that constitute a meaningful correlation between credit scores and insurance claims? What is the cutoff point between a meaningful and an insignificant correlation?" I reply: The mere fact that you ask that question proves you know zilch about the whole system. The very point of insurance is that the people that DON'T have mishaps must pay for the people that DO have mishaps. That's the whole point of insurance. What would you be saying if a study had been done saying that 10.8% of the people who had one moving violation on their records are expected to file an insurance claim in the next year. Would you also be beating the drum about how unfair it was that 89.2% of the people had to suffer due to the claims expected to come out of the 10.8?
|
| | Sunday, December 19, 1999 - 12:31 pm Sean, your reply is a defensive emotional reaction. You have no idea how to answer my question and still defend the use of credit scoring for auto insurance. Hurling insults and responding to a question with another question (that is off topic) isn't going to cut it. What was up with that naic link? [BTW: I'm still waiting for the URLs of all those credit scoring sites that claim millions of children will die and the environment will be destroyed because of credit scoring.]
|
| | Monday, December 20, 1999 - 10:05 am Barbara: It is you guys that are being emotional, not I. You rave on and on about how "unfair" it is that "unknown time since last inquiry" may result in a person getting a higher insurance rate. Let me guess, if they have to pay more on their insurance they won't be able to feed their kids, and this is all about corporate greed injuring poor lil' consumers that are being forced into paying more, right? I've got news for you, the insurance industry isn't filled with a lot of cosmic justice. Women get better rates than men. Older drivers get better rates than 18-year olds. A person that gets a ticket for stopping on the limit line as opposed to a foot behind will have his insurance rates move upwards because of his moving violation, even though by doing so he didn't run any risk of an accident or an insurance claim. That's life. As for whether 10.8% is statistically significant, when I get actual study in my hand, I'll run it by a statistics professor and I'll know. It may not be politically correct to point these things out, but let me just say that: Homosexuals are more likely to die from AIDS. Women are more likely to die in childbirth. African Americans are more likely to commit violent crimes and to be incarcerated. Does that make me a racist, sexist homophobe? So be it.
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 08:52 pm Sean said, "African Americans are more likely to commit violent crimes and to be incarcerated." Does that mean you would treat a black differently with regard to their making an offer on a piece of your real estate or in renting to them?
|
| | Wednesday, December 22, 1999 - 08:38 am I know that federal law forbids discrimination regarding a person's race and I know that my state 's laws forbid the practice of "steering" as being discriminatory. I, personally, have never had an African American person request to rent a piece of property that I own. It wouldn't bother me. I charge the maximum rent I can and I charge the maximum security deposit permitted by law. You don't get any safer than that. However, I do manage various properties that I don't own and yes, the owner does direct me to attempt to steer the African Americans to her "black apartment building" and I have warned her, in writing, that this is illegal and opens her up to a discrimination lawsuit. She also does not have a fence around her pool and I have warned her, in writing, that the county of Los Angeles requires all pools to be fenced because of the danger of small children drowning. A wrongful death lawsuit can run in the millions of dollars. The pool is still not fenced. Thank God, I have never had to "steer" an applicant in accordance with the directions of my employer. It so happens that the African Americans normally show up at the "correct" building, it being located in Compton. My goal is not to manage other people's real estate forever. I plan to own my own properties as quickly as I can and that's where my quest to master credit scoring comes in. Until then, I do what I'm told, and take appropriate action to ensure that my a$$ is covered. I do not agree that race, sex, age, religion or marital status should be excluded from emperically derived credit scoring systems. But that's the law, so we all live with it.
|
| | Wednesday, December 22, 1999 - 09:40 am An incredible admission. If things were run your way, you would get to lump everybody of a particular race into a group of deadbeats. Their economic situation was influenced by the income strata to which they were born, not to what race. There are bums in all races. There is no correlation to skin color.
|
| | Friday, December 24, 1999 - 10:22 am If things were "run my way" everyone would have the right to make their own decisions on how they'd use their own property (ir)regardless. It's your money, loan it out however you want. No one objects when the NAACP gives out scholarships to only African Americans. Why couldn't I start a NAAWP(white people) and give out scholarships only to caucasians? If a statistical study is done showing that a person of African descent is 10% more likely to default on a loan should I ignore that when making the decision? What if the study determines that African Americans that make $30,000 or more have similar default rates as other races, but that those making less than that are twice as likely to default compared to other races? Should I ignore that? Unfortunately in our facist country, the answer is yes, even though it's my money I have to loan it out how someone else(Big Brother?) tells me to loan it out (ir)regardless of what makes the most financial sense. In a sense, you might even say, I don't really own the money because I don't have the right to loan it out how I choose.
|
| | Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 03:07 am Sean: As for your white race advocate group, there is no reason you couldn't start one. What would be the point? As for your idea that legal discrimination in lending makes sense, blacks living in wealthy neighborhoods and who have perfect credit would disagree (once they stop laughing). Prior to this discussion, you said, "Screw 'fairness' I'm just interested in an accurate scoring mechanism even if it accurately portrays me as the 80+ mph, 18-inquiry, 35% of credit limit available high-risk kind of guy." (BayHouse WWW Real Estate, Finance and Credit Forum: Credit: CATEGORY: Legislative and FTC News and Consumer Action: Request for Comment - How should the law protect consumers?) That statement fell short you saying that you are white and want that fact to be noted, and your subsequent statements have cleared that up. Now that you are totally out of the closet and all your other statements in this forum and elsewhere have been colored by that, speak freely; you have nothing left to lose. How would your system treat those who change religions? And, are you allowed to serve on jury duty?
|
| | Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 03:24 pm That's right, Greg -- I'm a racist, sexist homophobe (as least in some people's eyes) because I don't agree with the politically correct concept of "fairness." The "Cosmic Justice" that Mr. Thomas Sowell excoriates so well in his most recent book). Of course this concept of "fairness" and "justice" is more about social justice, a method by which the failings of a specific "protected class" are compensated for by handicapping those who are better equipped either by nature or nuture to succeed in life. Quotas, reverse-discrimination and "racial norming" are just a few of the methods used to bring "fairness" to our education system, but why stop there, right Greg? Which brings us to the next point, Greg -- since the thread is insurance why have we heard nothing from you on the common practice of ranking men as higher risk than women for vehicle insurance? I notice that your site contains many insinuations that credit scoring either is or may be racist. Why haven't you explored the sexist aspects of credit scoring? Haven't we heard here on this very site many times where a man's credit score will be lower than his wife despite that they share many of the same accounts? Isn't it not only possible, but very likely that there is an undisclosed anti-male bent in the credit scoring process? But, you see, men aren't a protected class like women and non-caucasians are. I suppose it's alright for an African American to stand up and say, "Black Power" but if I do it, I'm judged by you as being a David Duke type, am I right? I suppose it's alright for a company to use a "diversity index" to determine that a more qualified white male won't get the job because a latina female is available to be hired? Perhaps a similar "diversity index" should be added to credit scoring so that a same number of minorities will be approved for credit as non-minorities, what do you think, Greg? As for jury duty, to this date I have not been called for jury duty but I wouldn't hesitate to serve if called.
|
| | Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 07:15 pm Sean: You certainly have a lot bottled-up inside of you. The point is to question whether you are fit to serve on a jury, given your predisposition against other people based on race. Would you reveal that prejudice to the court? You said, "I notice that your site contains many insinuations that credit scoring either is or may be racist." There are no such insinuations. Quote them, or knock off your baseless, unsubstantiated remarks. Unless we are being seriously duped, race is not a score factor-- indeed, it is certainly not even part of the data files the credit bureaus maintain. And, when deciding to grant credit, a creditor may not consider race. If it is secretly a factor, you would probably not want to call such attention to it, lest you lose your perceived advantage. Perhaps those with intimate knowledge of the industry and its practices would like to comment on your question about different insurance rates for males and females. My line of questioning to you concerns your comments regarding race. You asked, "Haven't we heard here on this very site many times where a man's credit score will be lower than his wife despite that they share many of the same accounts?" No. You asked, "Isn't it not only possible, but very likely that there is an undisclosed anti-male bent in the credit scoring process?" No. I think the line "Black Power" left about the same time as disco. Whether you are a "David Duke type" would be determined on the basis of more than two words. As for what I think about adding a "diversity index," you might as well be asking my opinion on the possibility of life in other galaxies. The bureaus have enough on their hands with their accuracy problem and fighting Congress on wanting to keep the score secret. It is also irrelevant because of a little thing called the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Race cannot be a basis. Let me know when you hear about a new law allowing it. Frankly, I think that you cannot believe someone would actually be so interested in your views that they would want to argue with you. I do so because your voice is so loud on this web site, an equalizing thread like this is a good way to discredit all of your postings in one fell swoop. Unless you feel your answer lies in your other ramblings, you didn't answer the question: "As for your white race advocate group, there is no reason you couldn't start one. What would be the point?" You also missed "How would your system treat those who change religions?" If you're going try to use the words and works of another to substantiate and lend credit to your points (without quoting them), at least give them their due title: it's Dr. Sowell, not "Mr." I can see why you remain anonymous255@yahoo.com. In your attempt to draw a box around me, you have only succeeded in darkening the lines around your box. I'm not the story, here. You are.
|
| | Monday, December 27, 1999 - 04:07 am You assume that I am prejudiced with the words, "Would you reveal that prejudice to the court?" I am not prejudiced against anyone, in fact, I turn to the definition of prejudice, which reads "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." I don't consider mentioning the fact that African Americans are more likely to commit a violent crime and more likely to be incarcerated to be "[an]...opinion formed beforehead...without knowledge or examination of the facts." I don't consider pointing out that Fair, Isaac's research indicates that people in high-minority zipcodes are more likely to default than their FICO score indicates to fall under that category either. An emperically derived scoring system just shows the truth of the matter reduced to a model that would have predicted the future with perfect accuracy if it had been used two years ago. If more minorities had defaulted in the past 2 years than non-minorities then that would show up in the model. What is so wrong with that? Finally as for your question of "As for your white race advocate group, there is no reason you couldn't start one. What would be the point?" What is the point of organizations like the NAACP? See also your 11/14 update of your site in which you point out that "blacks get lower FICO scores."
|
| | Monday, December 27, 1999 - 08:18 am Sean: Stop lying. That is not my statement; it is a quote of-- and link to-- the Mortgage Bankers Association web site.
|
| | Monday, December 27, 1999 - 11:52 am I'm glad to see the link is actually working now. The point is the way you make the statement is designed to create the impression you want. Your website is non-stop spin. For example you could've said, "...blacks get lower FICO scores. Hence, some observers argue that credit scoring may be unfair..." Of course it's not nearly as sensational and negative as the way you put it. It's that pesky "may be" in there that kills all the punch, y'know? Other examples of spin are the way you refer to statements by Fair, Isaac that you disagree with. Example: Claims Fair, Isaac: "... a score in isolation does not provide much information. I wonder why you chose the word "claims" instead of the more neutral says or stated or even the positive "indicates." Let's try: Fair, Isaac indicates "... a score in isolation does not provide much information." Now there's a different spin, eh? I saw nothing on the MBA link that gave any proof or evidence that "Blacks get lower FICO scores" why don't we rephrase that section to: The MBA web site claims that: "Black loan applicants are rejected more frequently than white applicants, and the immediate reason in many cases seems to be that blacks get lower FICO scores." No supporting link was found on that site. Kind of makes it sound a little different, doesn't it, Greg? Let's not stop there, let's fix a few other references. Let's just start with the first one on the list, about.com and let's rephrase that as: About.com [C]redit scoring does fill a need and has a positive side... Now there's a different spin. I could go on and on, but I think I've demonstrated my point.
|
| | Monday, December 27, 1999 - 01:21 pm Sean: Yes, you could go on and on (and you do), but that's just because you like to read your own verbose writing. This is too easy. While you discuss writing style and semantics, I still get to say you lied. I think that's funny. Your justificaton for stereotyping is just more bizarre entertainment. Your prejudice is your predisposition about an individual based on his skin color. You answered my question with a question you should ask the group you mentioned; I'm not so presumptuous as to try to state their positions. But you can speak for yours. Try not to evade the question this time. As for your white race advocate group, there is no reason you couldn't start one. What would be the point?
|
| | Tuesday, December 28, 1999 - 03:41 am Since you can't read, Greg, I'll just quote myself from above: "No one objects when the NAACP gives out scholarships to only African Americans. Why couldn't I start a NAAWP(white people) and give out scholarships only to caucasians?" You ask: What would be the point? The point would be to provide scholarships to caucasians.
|
| | Tuesday, December 28, 1999 - 05:15 am Sean: Stop your cheap, insipid rhetoric. I can read; you only asked questions-- and with your defensive posture, I don't dare read anything into them. Finally, you made a declarative statement after I dragged it out of you. What is the point of providing scholarships only to caucasions?
|
| | Tuesday, December 28, 1999 - 05:37 am The point of providing scholarships only to caucasians is the same as the point of providing scholarships only to African Americans. To provide funding for a college education.
|
| | Tuesday, December 28, 1999 - 01:10 pm Sean: There must be a reason such a thing doesn't exist. What is it?
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 03:38 am I'm suspecting government regulation is the reason it doesn't exist. I suspect that if any organization were to be created that did such a thing it would immediately be the subject of various lawsuits. Compare this to the lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America because they choose to exclude homosexuals. They are a private, non-profit organization. It's their choice.
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 04:29 am Sean: Is the NAACP the subject of lawsuits regarding scholarships?
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 04:49 am I have no knowledge of any lawsuits affecting the NAACP and their scholarship program. Suggest you contact Adriann Carver at (410) 358-8900 for more information.
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 07:08 am Sean: I don't even know who Adriann Carver is, and I won't be incurring any long distance fees to make this point. You said, "I suspect that if any organization were to be created that did such a thing it would immediately be the subject of various lawsuits." But you haven't cited any. Call Adriann Carver (410) 358-8900, yourself, and end your suspicion. If they excluded other races, where are the lawsuits? In a search to find out just who she is and what telephone number I would be calling, I found this page regarding the NAACP: http://www.pan.co.yakima.wa.us/commsvcs/directry/naacp.htm It states, "SERVICES PROVIDED: Efforts are to secure the rights of citizenship for every American; to seek, by legal means, to eliminate artificial barriers to the full expression of American democracy; and to secure equal job opportunities based on individual merit, without regard to race, religion, or national origin." Are they just snowing us?
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 10:41 am Yes, they're just snowing you. They are a racist organization. And I did call Ms. Carver and she is out all this week. Believe you me, if you were excluded from being hired because you were white and a company needed to meet their quota of African American persons the NAACP wouldn't be offended that you were demonstrably more qualified to perform that job but still didn't get it. But let a demonstrably superior African American not get hired because a less qualified caucasian was hired and they'll be glad to sue.
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 05:19 pm Sean: I'm glad I didn't waste my money. Who is Adriann Carver?
|
| | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 05:00 am Adriann Carver is in charge of the scholarship program for the NAACP.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |