+1000
@guydiver wrote:
@TNTransplant wrote:
@dharalex wrote:
@android01 wrote:This was the message from the CEO of the company that owns the new website. I have removed the name of the company with "US" and changed the initials of the website to "OUR SITE" to hopefully not violate the TOS here. What is transpiring is important because is confirms what I thought when I first found out what this website was trying to do.
"The automatic system was ready to launch in February 2012. Unfortunately, the major credit bureaus and FICO® have countered to stop the information found on OUR SITE from being disseminated. This system is currently suspended. They have falsely accused US of being a “credit repair” company, and have even asked US to use their “education, non-lender” credit scores."
The CRA's and Fair Isaac make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on their consumer purchased credit reporting business segments. EX, EQ and TU through their duping of the general public into buying their useless PLUS scores, and Fair Isaac through it's virtual monopoly of the only place to provide two of the three FICO scores and reports to consumers. It's a true David and Goliath situation at play, and us consumers get the shaft yet again. Imagine that...
I was definitely disappointed yesterday when I signed up, Hell, I was pissed. But, I don't think this is a scam. I DO believe that their intent was to do something monumental to help the consumer with credit issues. That being said, I will continue to use the service, because I need that extra info that I cannot get here. Don't get me wrong, this site is extremely helpful. However, I need a little more than YMMV. I have purchased "The Road to 850" and have gotten some great verifiable information. So all is not lost! I've decided work with what I have. The email stated they did have additional changes coming. As always, when you start to affect someone's wallet, they attack!I have the book, too, and I'm seriously considering signing up under the discount even if it is just for advice right now. Like you, I'm hopeful that eventually they could offer the scores like they'd planned. But, based on the email I'm not too hopeful that they'll be able to overcome the significant push-back they're getting.
However, if nothing else it shows how enmeshed the CRA and FICO are if they are actually fighting to keep people from getting this information. It's obviously about financial gain for them, and very much anti-consumer.
I totally agree. It's like politics. If the guy running against you is the better opponent with the better message and the better plan, how to you beat him? Just do everything you can to discredit or obstruct his campaign. That is what is going on here. I would absolutely love to see a class action lawsuit to put an end to this crap.
Starting Score: TU:676;EQ:648 8/2011
@kjm79 wrote:@TNTransplant wrote:
However, if nothing else it shows how enmeshed the CRA and FICO are if they are actually fighting to keep people from getting this information. It's obviously about financial gain for them, and very much anti-consumer.
I have to disagree on JUST one point. Even when this site gets the scores portion up and running, they have to get the score from FICO who would make money from MCP. So what's FICO's motivation for fighting it's launch? CRA's I can totally see. They'd lose out on the money they make selling their worthless scores. But what reason would FICO have to keep MCP down?
I agree with you to a certain extent; it doesn't logically make sense. However, based on the email sent and the website's message, it does appear there was some "behind the scenes" maneuvering to keep this site from offering all three scores.
As far as your question goes about FICO keeping them down, I can't answer that definitively. The email does reference both the CRAs and FICO making accusations of that site engaging in credit repair as the basis for their opposition. And as you well know from being a member of this site, illegitimate credit repair discussion is not something that is tolerated. In this entire thread (read by moderators and other posters much more knowledgeable than I), I have never seen a reference to the new website doing something like this. So, if this was their argument then why? I can only believe that it would harm them ALL financially in some way.
As a consumer, I’m just frustrated. We are already restricted in the amount of access we have to current scores, and I honestly don’t think this is all on the CRAs. If the agency in question could provide current/relevant scores from all three CRAs, ultimately the consumer would be empowered even more. Maybe it’s just conspiracy theory thinking on my part, but in my job I’ve become fairly proficient at reading between the lines, and something just doesn’t pass muster here.
I can see the CRA's being afraid of this site. Logically, FICO stands to bring in more money by making its scores available to MCP. It could be something similar to the EX/myFICO debacle and a fight over much to pay to access the scores. MCP has to have agreements with all the CRA's and FICO to access their information, maybe the devil is in the details and they just can't come to an agreement on the terms.
I saw that the email said FICO was involved, and I don't necessarily discount that. But just because someone says something or puts in in writing doesn't make it true. The other day there was a post on here that stated someone was told by an EQ CSR that myFICO is a third-party site and they couldn't rely on its scores. And that you could only get the EQ score from EQ. And again, it could be just a matter of being at opposite ends of the table as far as the agreements go. I've seen business deals get prolonged by years because the parties don't agree on ONE detail.
I'm right there with you on the being a frustrated consumer. I believe we should have access to all the different FICOs out there, I'm even willing to pay for them as needed. FICO is after all a business with a product I want. But having to jump through hoops or apply for credit you KNOW you'll get denied for just to get your scores is ridiculous. The first step in updating the system would be to make all the scores available to consumers. In my career field, I've also become very adept in reading between the lines. I also have learned to not follow the rabbit to far down the hole. There's MCP's side to this story, there's the CRA's side to this story, there's FICO's side to this story, and there's also the true side to the story. I also have been looking forward to this site's score launch, not the repair stuff. And I honestly don't see the problem with them offering repair advice as well as scores. Same rules that apply here would obviously need to be applied there on the legitimacy of the repair advice of course. There's definitely more to the story.
ETA: Can't spell worth junk today.
Well, at risk of waking the elephant in the room, I’m just going to say it. This has been on my mind, and as long as I’m suppositioning as to why I think that FICO® was just as involved as the CRAs in keeping this site from offering true FICO® scores, then here you go…
The primary reason that any of these would want the other site to be classified as a “credit repair” agency is for financial reasons - I think we all agree on that. And as another poster stated, how can one better defeat the enemy than to discredit and distract from the real issue?
Question: Why would FICO® be involved in this and want to restrict the other site from offering all three credit scores?
Answer: Because it would hurt their bottom line. This site is administered by FICO®, so I think it’s safe to say that they would suffer if consumers started buying their scores from another site. They pretty much have the market covered, with the exception of joining a bank/credit union/Walmart to obtain true FICO® scores (yes, I know about the outlier named Equifax). So, if I could obtain all three CRA FICO® scores monthly from one site for a reasonable fee, you better believe I’d be all over that. And so would a lot of other people as soon as the word got out. Ultimately, FICO® would suffer financially because they would lose sales of their own product through this site.
I've appreciated the good input from others on this thread; love the discussion - hopefully this post will be able to stay on here... 
FICO score availability aside, my complaint is the site claims to be "not for profit:"
<Our Company Name> is an ISO 9001:2008 accredited 501(c)(3)nonprofit (HUD-Approved) credit counseling agency which has helped thousands of individuals and families across the income spectrum expand their personal financial capability.
But I wouldn't say that's reflected in their prices, which I found to be pretty astronomical (the discount got them to closer to where they should be in the first place, imho).
Further, they go on to say the dispute is because they were accused of being a "credit repair company:"
They have falsely accused <Our Company> of being a “credit repair” company, and have even asked <Our Company> to use their “education, non-lender” credit scores.
But BBB states the parent company is, on top of an A+ rating (they're doing something right):
Business Category
Credit - Debt Consolidation Services, Financial Planning and Management Consultants, Bankruptcy Assistance Companies, Credit and Debt Consultants, Financial Services, Credit Services
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm rooting for the service; I think it would be a great (and profitable) product that's good for people, but I don't think it's fair to blame any single company here; collectively, they're failing consumers.
FICO scores are not free for a reason; they're a proprietary information analysis, I have no problem paying a reasonable fee for mine, as the site we're on does a fine service with (EX... hint hint...) That said, I think there is a palpable demand for what the above site is trying to offer, and it's a shame that the red tape interferes with the market. Meh, I'll move on with my life 
$0.02
EDIT: Couple of changes to above and tried to clarify my point, if there is one.
@TNTransplant wrote:Well, at risk of waking the elephant in the room, I’m just going to say it. This has been on my mind, and as long as I’m suppositioning as to why I think that FICO® was just as involved as the CRAs in keeping this site from offering true FICO® scores, then here you go…
The primary reason that any of these would want the other site to be classified as a “credit repair” agency is for financial reasons - I think we all agree on that. And as another poster stated, how can one better defeat the enemy than to discredit and distract from the real issue?
Question: Why would FICO® be involved in this and want to restrict the other site from offering all three credit scores?
Answer: Because it would hurt their bottom line. This site is administered by FICO®, so I think it’s safe to say that they would suffer if consumers started buying their scores from another site. They pretty much have the market covered, with the exception of joining a bank/credit union/Walmart to obtain true FICO® scores (yes, I know about the outlier named Equifax). So, if I could obtain all three CRA FICO® scores monthly from one site for a reasonable fee, you better believe I’d be all over that. And so would a lot of other people as soon as the word got out. Ultimately, FICO® would suffer financially because they would lose sales of their own product through this site.
I've appreciated the good input from others on this thread; love the discussion - hopefully this post will be able to stay on here...
The consumer services offered at MyFico add tens of millions (or more) to their bottom line. FICO has a monopoly on FICO scores available to consumers, even though only two (TU,EQ) are offered due to what ever pissing match they with EX a few years back. Do they want competition? Of course not, no corporation, especially publically traded ones that have shareholders to report to every quarter (see ticker symbol FICO). Furthermore, if you have a monopoly, you'll spend big bucks to keep it that way. I'm not a big fan of government intervention, but if mycreditplan.org is fighting for the consumer, this ordeal deserves its day in Congress, or perhaps the Supreme Court if they can manage to fund the litigation all the way. I'd donate to their cause if asked. I'm pretty sure that Fair Isaac, Experian, Equifax, and Transunion would have no problem coughing up the money to try and squash it. As I mentioned before, it's a David Vs Goliath scenario. I hope David wins.
On another note, if others were able to provide FICO based scores and reports on the same level that PLUS scores are available through a hundred websites, Fair Isaac would make money from that as well. i really don't get what the big deal is with FICO. They win anyway you look at it - as long as they are the top dog in the field, and even pretend concern for consumers.
If anything, I think this thing with mycreditplan.org is a shot across the bow of things to come. If FICO (and the CRA's) were smart, they'd see it this way and proactively do whatever is necessary to get consumers the scores that lenders use, including whatever issues that happened in the past with FICO and EX.
One last thing, I know this is FICO's board I'm posting on. I hope they read it occasionally. It would be nice if someone tried to explain FICO's side of the argument as it isn't going to go away, and will at some point end up in a court or congressional hearing. Consumer advocacy is a pretty big business too with many vocal advocates.
@Anonymous wrote:
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm rooting for the service; I think it would be a great (and profitable) product that's good for people, but I don't think it's fair to blame any single company here; collectively, they're failing consumers.
$0.02
Well said. I do agree with this. As KJM79 already stated, there are 2 (or more) sides to every story. I'm sure there are many reasons why this didn't work out, and we'll never really know what they were...
@android01 wrote:The consumer services offered at MyFico add tens of millions (or more) to their bottom line. FICO has a monopoly on FICO scores available to consumers, even though only two (TU,EQ) are offered due to what ever pissing match they with EX a few years back. Do they want competition? Of course not, no corporation, especially publically traded ones that have shareholders to report to every quarter (see ticker symbol FICO). Furthermore, if you have a monopoly, you'll spend big bucks to keep it that way. I'm not a big fan of government intervention, but if mycreditplan.org is fighting for the consumer, this ordeal deserves its day in Congress, or perhaps the Supreme Court if they can manage to fund the litigation all the way. I'd donate to their cause if asked. I'm pretty sure that Fair Isaac, Experian, Equifax, and Transunion would have no problem coughing up the money to try and squash it. As I mentioned before, it's a David Vs Goliath scenario. I hope David wins.
On another note, if others were able to provide FICO based scores and reports on the same level that PLUS scores are available through a hundred websites, Fair Isaac would make money from that as well. i really don't get what the big deal is with FICO. They win anyway you look at it - as long as they are the top dog in the field, and even pretend concern for consumers.
If anything, I think this thing with mycreditplan.org is a shot across the bow of things to come. If FICO (and the CRA's) were smart, they'd see it this way and proactively do whatever is necessary to get consumers the scores that lenders use, including whatever issues that happened in the past with FICO and EX.
One last thing, I know this is FICO's board I'm posting on. I hope they read it occasionally. It would be nice if someone tried to explain FICO's side of the argument as it isn't going to go away, and will at some point end up in a court or congressional hearing. Consumer advocacy is a pretty big business too with many vocal advocates.
Excellent post - very well written, and true.
I’ve consulted with people here, and to my knowledge, the three bureaus worked with MCP to stop the use of the FICO Scores. As I understand it, MCP tried to obtain FICO Scores from the three consumer reporting agencies without the appropriate contractual authorizations, violating its end-user contracts. FICO has long held that consumers are best served when they have access to FICO Scores calculated by all three of the major credit reporting agencies. However, products obtained illegally or through unauthorized channels do not serve the public’s interest.
@Sarah wrote:
I’ve consulted with people here, and to my knowledge, the three bureaus worked with MCP to stop the use of the FICO Scores. As I understand it, MCP tried to obtain FICO Scores from the three consumer reporting agencies without the appropriate contractual authorizations, violating its end-user contracts. FICO has long held that consumers are best served when they have access to FICO Scores calculated by all three of the major credit reporting agencies. However, products obtained illegally or through unauthorized channels do not serve the public’s interest.
So I take it the website (MCP) is pretty much useless then?
