New FICO08

[Anonymous]

Fair Isaac is also instrumental in keeping the metric system down, directing attention away from the man on the grassy knoll, hiding the bodies recovered from the Roswell saucer, and jamming attempts to sweep Loch Ness by radar to locate Nessie. It's a conspiracy, and it goes all the way to...

* clutches throat, trying to remove poison dart *

[MidnightVoice]

---

TheNewWorldMan wrote:
Fair Isaac is also instrumental in keeping the metric system down, directing attention away from the man on the grassy knoll, hiding the bodies recovered from the Roswell saucer, and jamming attempts to sweep Loch Ness by radar to locate Nessie. It's a conspiracy, and it goes all the way to...

* clutches throat, trying to remove poison dart *

---

Reminds me of the X files.....

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
The credit scoring and recording system is extremely flawed, unrealistic, and unreliable. It used to be that you would have to dress up in your Sunday Best, wash the car, and get a haircut before walking in to the local bank to ask for a loan.

And you honestly believe THAT dog-and-pony show was a more scientific and reliable way to determine creditworthiness than FICO?

I'm not saying FICO is perfect--far from it. But at least FICO scoring is objective and scientific.

[Anonymous]

If you took a moment to read the next sentence, you would have known that it said, "The banking and lending institutions have demanded a more reliable and efficient system, thus EXP, EQX, and TU." If you did take the time to read it, then you are simply taking my statement out of context. Neither strategy is considered effective rhetoric and does not help to better your dissent or your FICO paycheck...or does it?

Secondly, "scientific?" For next time, I strongly advise using a more carful word choice. Science is based on empirical evidence; evidence seen and PROVEN. The simple fact that a majority of credit reports contain incorrect or false information, and that the FICO algorithm is wholly dependent on that impure data lends to a conclusion that the scoring model is anything but scientific.

Lastly, objective is defined by Encarta (again) as "based on facts." Please see previous point for reference to the conclusion that your statement is based solely on presumptive mythic, not reality.

As you say, the FICO scoring model is far from perfect; otherwise known as the exact antithesis to science and objectification.

[Anonymous]

Your primary complaint with the credit scoring system appears to be that information on credit reports is often inaccurate. That may well be. But this has nothing to do with FICO's formula. You can't blame a formula or the creators of said formula for bad results because other people feed inaccurate data into the formula and therefore the formula puts out bad results.

I am 100% in favor of tightening standards for the accuracy of CRAs and information on credit reports (as I have posted before). For starters, I would like to see a ban on incomplete entries on credit reports. If I wrote the laws, I would mandate that CRAs reject any entry on a credit report that does not include:

* the original creditor
* the account balance
* the date of first delinquency (where applicable)
* full payment history (where applicable)
* full name, phone and snail mail contact information for the original creditor
* full name, phone and snail mail contact information for the entity tasked with collecting the debt

Period, end of story, no exceptions. No more "8cyx5356234az" collection agencies, or listings that say nothing more than "Collection" with no dates or balances.

I would also like to see the FICO scoring formula count paid collections and charge-offs at least somewhat less harshly than unpaid collections and charge-offs.

[Barry]

---

Christine wrote:

It's not a bad dream, FICO scoring is a nightmare and I'd LOVE to wake up! 

However, not only am I awake, but I've been analyzing FICO scores since they became mandatory for mortgages in the mid 90s.

The documentation is posted at http://creditlegislation.org/activists/forum11/19.html

There's the screenshot of the report and I even added the detailed explanation.  The DOCUMENTATION proves that there's a serious PROBLEM with late payments MADE UP by Fair Isaac's scoring software, late payments that are NOT reported by the CRA.

Apparently the posters here think it's FUNNY that millions of people were forced into subprime mortgages and are now losing their homes, families and some even their lives -- because of FICO scoring "bugs." 

Barry, if there's ANYTHING at all that's not accurate in my posting here or at my site, PLEASE let my know exactly what that is.

Since the fictitious late payment "bug" has NOT been fixed as I continue to see myFICO reports with those fictitious late payments, I can only assume that it is actually a  bug  by design, not just incompetence.

I'm going to send out a press release about the fictitious late payments and I'll forward it to members of the House Financial Services Committee.  Also, I'm writing a book about credit, scoring, banking, the real reasons for the subprime crisis, etc. 

So please advise if there are ANY inaccuracies whatsoever.

Thank you!

Christine

---

Hi Christine,

In the spirit of "fairness" that Fair Isaac apparently lacks so badly in your opinion, how about letting some of the "idiots" in this forum post to your forum?

Barry

Message Edited by Barry on 12-01-2007 10:48 AM

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm going to send out a press release about the fictitious late payments and I'll forward it to members of the House Financial Services Committee. Also, I'm writing a book about credit, scoring, banking, the real reasons for the subprime crisis,

Christine

---

The subprime and housing crisis? It's Econ 1A, not some conspiracy. Here's what happened:

1. Banks trying to make a buck lowered lending standards and wrote loans they shouldn't have.

2. As more mortgages were written, that poured more money into the housing market, increasing demand for housing.

3. The law of supply and demand kicked in, and prices went up.

4. as prices went up, loan writers had to get faster and looser with lending standards...return to Step 1, repeat 1 through 4 a few times until housing prices are way above sustainable levels.

5. Banks (and more importantly, their shareholders) began to realize many of these loans would go into default. A panic ensued.

6. Lending standards swung the other way, and mortgages became far more difficult to get.

We're now entering Step 7, which is a sharp decline in demand for housing. This is being followed by Step 8, which is a decline in housing valuations as all that money that used to chase houses is off the table now. We'll likely be repeating Steps 5 through 8, to the extent that we repeated 1 through 4, only more so because economic corrections tend to move prices beyond the original point of equilibrium.

Step 9 will be when valuations are in sync with what banks are willing to finance for consumers with decent or better credit. At this point, the correction will be more or less over, and normalcy can return.

[Anonymous]

Until I see some hard numbers on the subject, I remain of the opinion that the lending and credit scoring industry is full of &^$# on the AU issue. If the vast majority of so-called "piggybackers" are husbands and wives, who's names appear on all the mortgage and title papers, then the AU issue is what which I believe it to be--an opportunity for lenders to extract more subprimes, and FICO is the complacent puppy dog doing their bidding.

In a community property state, both spouses are on the hook for the debt if things turn sour--even if spouse #1 is the individual account or card holder on EVERYTHING. But, unless it's a joint account, both spouses don't benefit from on time payments once FICO 08 hits. Lenders want consumers on the hook if the debt goes delinquent, but they don't want the benefit of good TL reporting if the debt is paid on time.

I'm wondering if there might be a way to persuade state legislators to step in, at least in the community property states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. State law should be altered to REQUIRE lenders to offer joint account conversion on existing accounts without closing the old loan and originating a new one.

Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 12-03-2007 08:09 AM

Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 12-03-2007 08:10 AM

[Anonymous]

or bf and gf who have lived at same address for past 7 years and are both on title, deed, etc... I think if you can prove that you live at the same address AU should be allowed. If they want to take it a step farther why don't they say you must have lived together for atleast a year or something like that? This is going to hurt alot of people. Me an my bf included because he is AU on some of my cards and I am AU on some of his.

[fused]

I have no issues with AUs, but they shouldn't be factored in scoring no matter what relationship exists bewtween the primary card holder and the AU.