@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
@ChargedUp wrote:Chase??? Using Vantage for internal scoring and CLI's???
That's it... I've had enough internet today.
Chase has been using them for years along with EX and EQ fico 8.
Why would Chase use a different model for TU vs. EQ and EX? From being around MyFico, I think I've heard of maybe one or two little known banks using Vantage for anything along the lines of decision making...
@ChargedUp wrote:
@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
@ChargedUp wrote:Chase??? Using Vantage for internal scoring and CLI's???
That's it... I've had enough internet today.
Chase has been using them for years along with EX and EQ fico 8.
Why would Chase use a different model for TU vs. EQ and EX? From being around MyFico, I think I've heard of maybe one or two little known banks using Vantage for anything along the lines of decision making...
It is my understanding that Chase CC lending does not use VS. Their proprietary model is CARS for all CC originations inclusive of CLIs.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
What FICO Open Access offered is if a lender pulled a FICO score as part of their account reviews on existing customers, they could provide that score free of charge to the customer directly.
A lot of lenders took advantage of this, but with some lenders stepping away it means something concrete:
They are no longer pulling a FICO score for their account reviews.They could provide that score free of charge or they have to provide that score free of charge? If they have to, I agree with what you said above. If providing the FICO score that they pull is simply an option, I don't see why they could just opt to not provide it? That being said, this doesn't mean that FICO scores are no longer being pulled necessarily, simply that they aren't being provided to the customer no?
Perhaps in some universe, but please provide one rational reason why they would simply stop providing it: they built all the infrastructure to do it, getting rid of it takes actual money, and why take away any consumer service unless the reward was there for doing so?
What is the reward in this case? The actual cost to providing it was negligible if near zero compared to the rest of their infrastructure, it just doesn't track unless they couldn't do it anymore.
Occam's razor applies here.
And yes I was explicit with my wording of "could" it is not mandatory as you suggest.
