Well, it's also sort of gaming the system (though I don't see it as outright unethical) to look through the various credit pulls databases and see who pulls what.
I'll admit I've done my research on lender pulls, when I go hit my mini-app spree at the end of the year trying for entry unsecured cards, I'm cherry picking ones which are known to pull separate CRA's for future FICO reasons: Amex charge - EX, USAA - EQ, Some GE card probably Apple (since I need to be purchasing a new Mac for home use anyway) for TU.
It's probably immaterial for me in the long run as I don't really apply for much credit-card wise, and I drive my cars into the ground; however, for me the lion's share of inquiries tend to land on EX, and like you that annoys me for when I make my theoretical attempt to gain a mortgage.
@Anonymous wrote:
so why bother having 3 bureaus if they're only pulling one specifically
Historical reasons (when robust connectivity didn't exist and long distance phone and X.25 networks were hellaciously expensive) and to prevent some pretty nasty potential collusive behavior.
Originally they were setup EQ - East coast, TU - midwest, EX west coast, but this blurred over time when they started competing with each other, the rise of lenders who whose customers fell into a particular area (see USAA - military east coast resulted in a EQ relationship), and I suspect as the price of connectivity fell dramatically with the implementation of the national Frame-Relay networks made the whole operation substantially more affordable for smaller lenders and currently all the CRA's and FICO as well have VPN connectivity to a whole bunch of customers... though the CRA's also still run their own private-line network with the largest of lenders.
These days the report data should be close to identical but some smaller CU's, random one-off lenders, furniture financing, etc, sometimes only get reported to the single bureaus still.
Why don't people have the same reaction when someone posts "Which cards only pull EQ?"?
Starting Score: 675
@drkaje wrote:Why don't people have the same reaction when someone posts "Which cards only pull EQ?"?
Arguably because it's the lender's choice as to whom they pull, and virtually all lenders *could* pull any of the three if they were so inclined... virtually all of them that I'm aware of have the network infrastructure to do so. The one I work at currently pulls EX exclusively for their personal loans, but of course pull all three for their mortgage applications. It's pretty silly in our case as we really should be pulling all three for best resolution on our customers, but that's the choice the powers-that-be made correct or not. Somewhat off-topic, but it's why I can accept Cap One's pulling all three bureaus as they lend nearly exclusively to subprime, though generally their borrowers are at a higher strata.
If Amex decides to pull EQ, and USAA decides to pull EX in my case, or they both pull EX or EQ, that's their perogative and I made a bet and lost. No biggie.
Anyway, freezing one's report though is potentially preventing a legitimate inquiry for any of several reasons, which in my opinion is definately further down the ethical slope. I understand I may be splitting hairs, IMO everything is shades of grey anyway when it comes to ethical debate.
@AF_23 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I just hate seeing all the inquiries under one CRA. It artificially creates a lower score. I would prefer they show on all CRA lines quite frankly.
It's really not my problem. They play games with it all.
And they're supposed to say the same things (mine do)Case by case difference. CITI absolutely will not approve you, unless they get their report of choice which is EQ for me. Chase i believe too be similar. Capital One didnt seem to care but i was a customer already so they could have possibly softed.
well Citi was the problem child pulling the same CRA (I've been apping for different Citis trying to get one to get the last major into the wallet lol) and dropping just that one score. Chase and Disc pulled the same while Amex pulled EX. Ford did Ex and EQ
So now, literally, the only difference in my CR lines is inquiries. I guess I just prefer balance 
I also wonder why their fascination with EQ.
Doesn't really matter then I suppose, if they can't get the one they want then they won't pull one at all.
@ Rev,
I wouldn't do it but people manipulate their scores in so many other ways that locking reports seems an odd place to draw some ethical line. Someone getting AU, goodwill, PFD, BNPL accounts, aggressive credit monitoring, etc... is improving how they look on paper. There's really not much difference between prettying how you look on paper and deciding which paper they look at. 
@ di,
Let's take your analogy to the next logical level: What if the entire house is shown, it passes inspection, and you find out later the foundation was repaired? It's not like anyone says to their mortgage broker "I fought tooth and nail to clean up my report and used every trick in the book!". In terms of risk, issuing a credit card is nothing compared to funding a mortgage.
Like I wrote earlier; it's not something I'd personally do. That being said, I find it really oddly amusing that people are so offended by the practice. If someone uses methods that violate TOS here to get a mortgage everyone posts "Good for you, honey! You deserve a second chance in a bigger house!". Stop creditor X from looking at Experian and inevitably something like "You're a liar" gets posted.
It's not exactly the same but aren't we always advised to "opt out" before rebuilding. That's specifically to prevent our information from being sold so "Zombie debt" popping up demanding to be paid.
Many more example could be listed but my question is: Why is this is the only practice people get to openly express displeasure towards?
If if were possible to privately re-finance all my debt, in a way that did not report to credit bureaus, it'd be done in a "New York minute", LOL!!!
@drkaje wrote:@ Rev,
I wouldn't do it but people manipulate their scores in so many other ways that locking reports seems an odd place to draw some ethical line. Someone getting AU, goodwill, PFD, BNPL accounts, aggressive credit monitoring, etc... is improving how they look on paper. There's really not much difference between prettying how you look on paper and deciding which paper they look at.
:List out the various manipulations people use of their credit report, and then pick somewhere to draw the line. What do you see as the shenanigans that people pull to game the system... do you include my opening up a secured personal loan just for the tradeline, or two more credit cards I absolutely don't need? If that's a lighter shade of grey (and I'd argue it absolutely is) then where do we cross the line into unacceptability? All ethics are situational in my opinion anyway, so it makes for an interesting discussion regardless.
Freezing a report was designed to combat identify theft / fraud. In my opinion, using it to force a lender to hit a different report is way outside the scope and it begs the question why.
Even the semi-legitimate complaint that inquiries all wind up on one, generally speaking this has more upside than downside (since mortgage pull takes your middle score, hey I'm penalized only on one, no problem!). Further the credit system designed inquiries with a specific reason in mind: it showed that the consumer was seeking new credit. We get all righteously angry when a lender plays bait and switch with us, how is this really any different in the worst, most eggregious abuses we can imagine for locking a report... except here we're proverbially screwing the lenders rather than the other way around?
As you correctly pointed out though, it's pretty moot regardless: you can just research lenders that pull a given bureau nearly exclusively... it's not hard to split one's inquiries between EQ and EX if you so desire. It's a little harder to get anything on TU, but the mid-west has always been the least populous area in the nation anyway so figures their market penetration would be weakest.