05-11-2012 07:44 PM
Wow Ok I just spent 30 minutes reading all these posts and huge dissapointment . I want my time back!!!!
05-12-2012 06:24 AM
LOL LOL I read the first 2-3 pages and saw where it was going and decided it was best to move on to something else.
05-13-2012 07:14 PM - edited 05-13-2012 07:18 PM
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.
I was one of the folks who got their report from MCP when it was in Beta testing mode. The report was a tri-merge from CBC Innovis, and very similar to a report that anyone can see when applying for a mortgage, which AAA Fair Credit is allowed (and obviously paid for) to pull. They provided the most informative insights that I've ever had as far as what matters to FICO scoring. They mearly analyzed this report through their filters and programs. FICO was specifically named in the letter from the CEO of MCP along with the CRA's. I fail to see what is "illegal or through unauthorized channels" about what they are trying to do. They've paid for the scores. They are analyzyng something that they paid for, and we as consumers pay for in return. There is nothing different than what MyFico does with EQ and TU ( with the exception that TU98 is virtually useless these days), except with a greater insight as to what really matters in the credit world according to FICO. What they offered was far more informative than whatever MyFico provides, using your own scoring system.
I appreciate your response Sarah, and don't get me wrong, but your answer smacks of corporate pablum that doesn't really answer anything. Please correct me if I am wrong, or feel free to offer a little more transperency.
05-13-2012 08:05 PM
There's a non-zero chance that the issue was with CBC/Innovis reselling the scores for unauthorized usage. There's a non-trivial amount of contract language between a CRA and a lender, though I haven't seen the terms specifically. You figure this has to be in place, otherwise what is to stop Amex or any other lender with relationships with the three CRA's from doing exactly the same with their credit monitoring product?
That assumption of course is ignoring the white elephant in the living room that the lenders may not want us to know our actual scores.
The really wierd thing is that the CRA's provide Vantage scores to all comers, and that's their competing product to all things Fair Issac. I'd also point out that I'm pretty certain that FICO owns the algorithms, and as such could offer a service where we upload a report and they generate the score for us; there'd need to be a lot of disclaimers on there, but I don't see any legal reason that they couldn't if they really wanted us to have access to our scores... it's not like the CRA's and FICO aren't uncomfortable bedfollows anyway after the Vantage model began to be marketed.
The whole thing is beyond my ken, and the relationships between the lenders, CRA's, and FICO are incredibly complicated. I still think this needs to happen as the entire process is in desperate need of more transparency, but at this point other than a useless letter to my Congressman, there's not much which can be done until some legal sticking point comes up, or the government decides that FCRA isn't enough.