topic Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy in Understanding FICO® Scoring

FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:01:37 GMT

I understand the difference between FICO and FAKO, but shouldn't they be SORT of close to each other?

My truecredit EQ is 577. Five. Seventy. Seven.

My FICO EQ is 703.

*clings tightly to FICO score*

So, there's no chance credit card companies would see that 577 ever linked with my name, right? I was thinking maybe THIS is why I'm having trouble getting a card?

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

haulingthescoreup — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:13:20 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

I understand the difference between FICO and FAKO, but shouldn't they be SORT of close to each other?

My truecredit EQ is 577. Five. Seventy. Seven.

My FICO EQ is 703.

*clings tightly to FICO score*

So, there's no chance credit card companies would see that 577 ever linked with my name, right? I was thinking maybe THIS is why I'm having trouble getting a card?
No, they're not seeing your TC score. Cling away!

What's going on on your reports, all three, not just EQ? You can have a nice decent score in the low 700's with some pretty horrible derogatories on your reports, as long as they're not recent. You could have the same scores because you used to have a 790, and a 30-day late just hit. You might have some sort of automatic thumbs-down on your reports. And are you sure you're app'ing CCC's that pull EQ, and not EX or maybe TU?

But there's no real correlation between FICO's and FAKO's, because they're generated by different formulas. Imagine there are formulas for "cutest kid in 7th grade." There might be one or two factors that are the same in every formula like pretty/handsome and outgoing personality. But there are other factors than won't be on every formula, or will be ranked higher on one and lower on another, like friendly, smart, good dresser, athletic, short, tall, won't talk to me in the hallway between classes, and on and on. (We all remember 7th grade.) So the scores from the cute kid formulas are going to vary, sometimes by a lot.

I'm happy that FICO thinks you're way cuter than TrueCredit!

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:33:48 GMT

Thanks, I was pretty sure of that, I just wanted the extra assurance! I'll stop hyperventilating now.

I love your cute kid metaphor!

TU is 715, EX is 698, EQ is 703 (FICOs). I don't know why I keep getting turned down. (i've posted about this in the CC forum.) I mean FLAT turned down. Not "why not take this crappier card instead?"

I did pay an old collection, which only EX lists as a baddie, the other two just list it as a late payment. It had almost no effect on my scores.

I finally reconned Chase and they said I never verified my address, but I never got the letter. I told them to resend the mail and I'd take care of it. We'll see....but I mean, Capital1 turned me down, and I used to HAVE one of those! It was a rebuilding phase, I think it had a 300 dollar limit to start, and I don't remember what it got up to. But I closed it on my own, in good standing.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Lel — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:38:25 GMT

There is almost no way to predict how closely FICOs and FAKOs are going to be. My DW, for example, had a Vantage score of 972 (nearly the maximum) but had an EQ FICO of 759, well below the maximum. You'll find some folks out there in the blog world who have seen a strong correlation between FICO and FAKOs, but it's not consistent.

FICO scores are whimsical enough as it is, so you'll have plenty to think about with the genuine product without having to worry about the pretenders.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Junejer — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:20:07 GMT

Here's how goofy FAKOs are. Today from TC (A TU product) my TU FAKO is 643. Also today Credit Karma (which pulls a TU score) is 651. My real TU FICO is 664. TC EQ has me at 704, while my EQ FICO is 788. FAKOs are goofy.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Lel — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:38:35 GMT

Hmm, ByrdMan, your numbers also show that the real FICO can be pretty goofy too. Your TU and EQ FICOs are 120 points apart. How did this happen?

I've pulled FICOs from EQ and EX only. Your result makes me curious about the TU score now.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Junejer — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:51:46 GMT

Nope, the FICOs are fine. TU is reporting some residual baddies (in error on me), which belong to my ex. There are material differences in what's being reported on my three reports. I don't have a problem with the scores, only that they are reporting garbage.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Anonymous — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:52:45 GMT

I'd be a millionaire if I was paid $1 for everytime someone asked "Why aren't my FICO's and FAKO's about the same?"

Unfortuanately, people don't read the "Frequently requested threads" at the top of each section before posting this subject over, and over, and over, and over, and over........................................................

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

marty56 — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:29:20 GMT

I rather sell Marty credit scores that are guaranteed to be at least as good as your FICO score and if they are not, they next time you "pull" them they will be 10 points higher then last time.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Junejer — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:41:58 GMT

@marty56 wrote:

I rather sell Marty credit scores that are guaranteed to be at least as good as your FICO score and if they are not, they next time you "pull" them they will be 10 points higher then last time.

You wouldn't have to charge as much either. You'd make a killing.

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

RobertEG — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:52:44 GMT

I must restate, and regurgitate, my aversion to the continued use on this site, of the derogitory term "FAKO."

Fair Issac is admittedly the the prime seller of credit scores, and their trademark permits only their scoring algotim to be labeled as "FICO." But that does make other sellors of credit scores "FAKOS." Call them non FICOs, call themj Clem, call the what you want, but this is a capitalist country, and Ma-Bell was once the only one,. Credit scores are only of relevance to the mind of the creditor considering them in a credit decison, and not of the seller of the score.

Please do not confuse market dominance with superior product or lendor choice. I dont not think that FICO is any better than any other of the myriad of credit scoring algoithms, it just so happens to be the most promiinent because iit was the fist,.

FICO is not the holy grail.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-10-2008 01:39 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-10-2008 01:44 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-10-2008 01:52 PM

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

marty56 — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:48:09 GMT

I wonder then is a FICO score a FAKO FAKO

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

Junejer — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:22:08 GMT

Robert, they are FAKOs. This is a capitalist society and I love it. I am not mad at them b/c they are making their money. Their scores are absolutely worthless to anything relating to the real world, however. FICO IS the holy grail, b/c over 90% of lenders are evaluating their credit decisions based off of that score. Nobody is using the Credit Karma score or any of the other gazillion algorithms out there. So, when someone knocks FICO off of its perch, then we will include FICO in with the FAKOs (or whatever clever name someone will come up with to play off of the new king of the hill's name).

IMHO, these scores are worse than generic, b/c there is no practical use for them. At least, generic brands of other products can be a substitute for the leading brand. The FAKOs can't even be that. So, in my mind, I love that someone dubbed them FAKOs, because that is exactly what they are. As America becomes more and more aware about this, the FAKOs will lose its steam, and that guy can quit "thinking of a number".

Re: FAKO/FICO discrepancy

haulingthescoreup — Sun, 11 May 2008 03:44:56 GMT

@Junejer wrote:
Robert, they are FAKOs. This is a capitalist society and I love it. I am not mad at them b/c they are making their money. Their scores are absolutely worthless to anything relating to the real world, however. FICO IS the holy grail, b/c over 90% of lenders are evaluating their credit decisions based off of that score. Nobody is using the Credit Karma score or any of the other gazillion algorithms out there. So, when someone knocks FICO off of its perch, then we will include FICO in with the FAKOs (or whatever clever name someone will come up with to play off of the new king of the hill's name).

IMHO, these scores are worse than generic, b/c there is no practical use for them. At least, generic brands of other products can be a substitute for the leading brand. The FAKOs can't even be that. So, in my mind, I love that someone dubbed them FAKOs, because that is exactly what they are. As America becomes more and more aware about this, the FAKOs will lose its steam, and that guy can quit "thinking of a number".

Agreed!

I get a huge knot in my stomach whenever someone posts here that they went in for a car loan or mortgage and got a horrible rate, because they had been checking their "non-FICO" scores, shall we say, and their FICO's were lower. And it happens a lot!

Last fall, a USA Today reporter actually posted here asking if anyone had experienced this. We had several members contact him and share their stories. I never did manage to catch the article, although I understand that it did print.

If credit-scores-that-are-generated-by-an-algorithm-other-than-the-one-from-Fair-Isaac (is that better?) were used by a significant number of lenders, it would be different. But as it currently stands, they are no more useful than my daily Libra horoscope published in the newspaper: mildly entertaining to follow, but only that. And horoscopes are generated by various types of formulas too, btw.