Just a bit of a vent.

Anonymous · ‎06-17-2015

I appreciate any source of free credit scores/monitoring that I can.. But it is just an awful feeling going to places like Credit.com or Credit Sesame and seeing the dismal scores they offer. On those sites I'm in the 630s... anywhere between 70-100 points lower than my actual FICO scores. They often make a point of telling me my credit is "poor" or maybe, just barely "fair." Then to add insult to injury, these guys recommend I go after Credit One, secured cards, and Fingerhut. I'm not dissing anyone with 630 scores or those cards--I have Credit One myself (and these cards have their places when building/rebuilding)--but it's a ding to my ego when I see those when I'm proud of where I actually am.

I understand their FAKOs. I understand they're educational and in a few cases might be used. And these sites definitely have their place by providing free looks at your updated reports. But I feel bad for people that go to these sites and think they're being given a legitimate score and are disappointed by what they see when, in reality, they may be far and above what those sites show them. Or if they follow suit and go after predatory loans when they could actually get prime cards. It's all fine and well for those of us who understand the difference, but I'd say that people actively participating on a credit forum probably pay a little more attention than the average consumer.

Anyone know the reason why they don't just provide FICOs? Is it a cost thing? Is it because so many CCCs are providing FICOs with statements now?

Anonymous · ‎06-17-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
I appreciate any source of free credit scores/monitoring that I can.. But it is just an awful feeling going to places like Credit.com or Credit Sesame and seeing the dismal scores they offer. On those sites I'm in the 630s... anywhere between 70-100 points lower than my actual FICO scores. They often make a point of telling me my credit is "poor" or maybe, just barely "fair." Then to add insult to injury, these guys recommend I go after Credit One, secured cards, and Fingerhut. I'm not dissing anyone with 630 scores or those cards--I have Credit One myself (and these cards have their places when building/rebuilding)--but it's a ding to my ego when I see those when I'm proud of where I actually am.

I understand their FAKOs. I understand they're educational and in a few cases might be used. And these sites definitely have their place by providing free looks at your updated reports. But I feel bad for people that go to these sites and think they're being given a legitimate score and are disappointed by what they see when, in reality, they may be far and above what those sites show them. Or if they follow suit and go after predatory loans when they could actually get prime cards. It's all fine and well for those of us who understand the difference, but I'd say that people actively participating on a credit forum probably pay a little more attention than the average consumer.

Anyone know the reason why they don't just provide FICOs? Is it a cost thing? Is it because so many CCCs are providing FICOs with statements now?

All comes down to $$$$$

Anonymous · ‎06-17-2015

I feel much worse for the people that pop a 720 on CK then apply for something and then find out the real scores are 635...

Anonymous · ‎06-17-2015

I hear ya. Some do the same to me. Just depends which one. I try and ignore the score and look at the reports. And yes, I've seen those starter credit card offers too.

Anonymous · ‎06-17-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
I feel much worse for the people that pop a 720 on CK then apply for something and then find out the real scores are 635...

Of course. Didn't mention that, but I think that's just about the worst it could go. It's terrible.

Anonymous · ‎06-17-2015

Before I found myFICO and got real FICO 8 scores, I fell for the scores from CK and my PSECU score. The CK is the Vantage and I wouldn't have known the difference at all until I finally stumbled over here.

For me, I have higher FICO scores than CK. As of yesterday, my true FICO scores for TU and EQ are 810 and 793 respectively. On Sunday, when CK updated their Vantage scores, they are TU and EQ 765-791. What's even funnier is my highest FICO 8 score is TU and my lowest score on CK is TU. The only reason I even use CK anymore since I get creditchecktotal for $14.97 is the alerts which sometimes are quicker to report to my email than other services.

takeshi74 · ‎06-18-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
But it is just an awful feeling going to places like Credit.com or Credit Sesame and seeing the dismal scores they offer.

Stop fixating on the numbers. There's no point in worrying over a given score unless you have or plan to use a creditor that acutally uses the score.

@Anonymous wrote:
But I feel bad for people that go to these sites and think they're being given a legitimate score and are disappointed by what they see when, in reality, they may be far and above what those sites show them.

It could go either way as far as which score is higher and which score is lower. The same issue exists even with relying on FICO's. You cannot rely on a score generated by one model to determine a score generated by a different model whether comparing FAKO to FICO, FICO to FICO or FAKO to FAKO. One has to expect different algorithms to produce different results.

Educating one's self is every person's responsibility regardless of whether one uses a forum on a given topic or not. Each has to make the time and put in the effort for the things that matter to that person. When one's credit and scores are important enough to the individual then that person will put forth the time and effort to learn about them. The information is out there and it's not exclusive to credit discussion forums.

@Anonymous wrote:

Anyone know the reason why they don't just provide FICOs? Is it a cost thing?

As stated above it's all about money. FICO's come at a cost. Fair Isaac is a business and FICO's are their products. They don't make money by handing them out for free.

GoldSorata · ‎06-18-2015

Even worse with most FAKOs you can't even go by consistency. While for many their FAKO scores are much lower, I've been generally experiencing the opposite, until recently, mine were showing score that were much higher than what my actual FICOs were.