@Anonymous wrote:
Thank you and yes I will look at it.
Frustrating stuff.
I deal with credit with the products I sell.
A 640 is a minimum score to allow you to enter thru the front door with a couple of my lenders.
They're my favorites because of that.
A 680 allows you to stand at the back door with hat in your hand with some but with those a 720 allows you to walk in the front door.
680 will get you bought with a high interest rate
720 allows a good interest rate.
It's all the credit score number.
Your number allows you to sit at a good table in the restaurant (so to speak) vs a lower number allowing you to be thrown a sndwhich out the kitchen door (so to speak).
It annoys me greatly that I dont qualify to get a preferred rate on my own products.
Yes, I will look at your suggestion.
I've tried Credit Karma which is useless
I'm currently with MyFico and Equifax Complete but as stated cant figure out the disparity.
I'll try your suggestion....................
THANKS!
Everyone has shared your frustrations with the credit scoring system and how they personally rank, but for all its complexity, it is a far, far better system than used to be used in granting credit.
My first job was as a teller at the old Washington Mutual in 1979. We had 26 branches in Washington State. I got promoted and did car loans, second mortgages and consumer loans within about 6 months.
In those days we did not have credit scores, although we used an internal computer that ranked people based on rent versus own, have a checking and savings, have a telephone, etc. Lending was very subjective in those days. I also had to call to remind past due people to make their car loan payments. I would see the credit report and wonder why the previous manager had approved the guy and there would be a note in the file that said "he's a good family man," which was kind of a code for a white, regular guy who the manager happened to like.
Later I worked in the head office releasing very old mortgages (even the original mortgage on the Space Needle). Looking through those files to prepare releases was mind blowing to me at age 20. Covenants in the deeds had things like "no negroes, no Jews." Women's income was not counted becasue it was assumed that she would soon quit whatever crappy job she had to stay home and do her duty and have babies. Besides, a woman who was not competent to manage her own affairs. That was her husband's job.
I chuckled when I saw your comments about whether you would be seated in the front or the back of the restaurant based on a 640 or a 680 or a 720 score. Before FICO scores (and similar empirical credit scores) no one would have asked you about your credit score. They would have looked at you and decided that since you were black or your name was Jewish, you couldn't come in at all; that since you were a woman, you could not sit in the bar area without being escorted by a male, and if you looked appropriately rich, attractive and white you might get a seat in the front room. Then (as now!) if you were a celebrity you got the best table in the house.
For all their flaws, credit scores, including FICO scores, were designed to judge you based on empirical data validated through millions of tests with a constantly updated algorithm.
And remember, credit scores weren't created to help you. In fact you are irrelevant to the credit score. They were created to help lenders quickly ascertain and price risk. They weren't meant to say who is a good person, who is a bad person. It is not a character score, it is a credit score, used to predict risk. If it were not valid, the FICO company would not have collected $789 million in 2014.
