Why is my FICO Score Falling

[Tuscani]

---

Noah_Bodie wrote:

IIRC, one can buy an actual FICO from 2 of the 3 CRAs for around $10-15 each. These are FICOs mind you, not the FAKOs the Big Three sell. I'll fish around CIC for the info.

---

Thanks. I am eagerly waiting to find out as EQ should be the only CRA that offers FICO to consumers.

[Tuscani]

---

toddj1965 wrote:

Tuscani what did you mean "you never know who a creditor is going to pull"?

---

When you apply for credit the creditor could pull TU, EQ, EX, two of the three, all three, ect. With some research you may be able to accurately guess so you are prepared, but not always. This is why you need to make sure you know whats on all three of your reports including all three scores.

[Anonymous]

It is frustrating that  TransUnion is SOOOOOOOOOO screwed up. Maybe people should boycott purchasing Transunion from MyFICO.

[Anonymous]

If I could pull the shortest straw for one of the three, it would be Equifax...my low EQ score is like the turd that just won't flush. Where my other scores have been up 70 and 90 points, EQ is still sucking along at 607.

[Anonymous]

That sucks...it seems that a lot of people have one of the three agencies reporting a lower number than it should be.  I just wonder the validity of the scoring with so many glitches. I know for a fact that my score should be higher...there is no reason it should have fallen. ARRRGHH!!

[Anonymous]

Well I'm not sure about whether I want to pay another $30 to verify TU is as #$#%#$% up as I think they are..Ithen again it's hard to definitively that TU is as #$%#$% up as I think they are without  double checking the other two Credit agencies..

Really it's less the $30 and more the principle of the thing.

[Anonymous]

You know one other thing that bothers me is that if your credit score determines things like auto insurance rates.. it makes it difficult to "live off the grid"..in this case of course the grid is the Fico Scoring  System.

But as I said in previous posts..what bothers me is that my score while still very good is going down not up despite the fact everying I'm doing should be only raising it. 

Doesn't seem very fair that my credit score could affect things like my home/auto insurance rates if I have some degree of powerlessness around what the final number is

[Tuscani]

I think it's always about money. They want more, they find a way to work it out so they get more. It has nothing to do with how we drive, it's just another tactic and enough people DON"T check their credit or question anything that they get away with it. Even with all the hub-bub that challenged this, it's still obviously not going to go away.

There's millions of people filing for personal bankruptcies every year (record numbers of honest people who have had unfortunate circumstances after 9/11 etc.) along with everyone else with credit problems, and what better way to sock it to us even more.

[Anonymous]

I agree- people have not really said enough about how the data is being collected and perhaps more importantly questioning the validity of the scoring techniques. While I dont blame the three CRA's for the sub-prime lending fiasco (I guess one could even argue that the increased rate of foreclosure with subprime borrowers gives some validity to the scoring)...I do think that the scoring is somewhat arbritrary esp when you get to the point of telling me that my length of credit history is the factor. Esp in my case where the score went down for absolutely no reason (given my credit history was 1 year older..there were no new accts since last year).

While I can't say much right now..the difference between a 805 and 790 may be more or less academic..being that it won't affect borrowing costs..the trend is going toward 760...which could affect my lending costs or my insurance costs....this could be an interesting legal argument..the credit agencies affecting these costs without giving clear reason why score is lowering...I am sure I am not the only one in this situation.

[smallfry]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I agree- people have not really said enough about how the data is being collected and perhaps more importantly questioning the validity of the scoring techniques. While I dont blame the three CRA's for the sub-prime lending fiasco (I guess one could even argue that the increased rate of foreclosure with subprime borrowers gives some validity to the scoring)...I do think that the scoring is somewhat arbritrary esp when you get to the point of telling me that my length of credit history is the factor. Esp in my case where the score went down for absolutely no reason (given my credit history was 1 year older..there were no new accts since last year).

While I can't say much right now..the difference between a 805 and 790 may be more or less academic..being that it won't affect borrowing costs..the trend is going toward 760...which could affect my lending costs or my insurance costs....this could be an interesting legal argument..the credit agencies affecting these costs without giving clear reason why score is lowering...I am sure I am not the only one in this situation.

---

Lower scores benefit who? Answer that question and you will have your answer.