@iced wrote:
Fair Isaac effectively has a monopoly on the credit scoring market, which is a problem in itself. To dismiss any other scoring model that comes along as useless and deceptive will help ensure that no competition can ever come about. At least we have 3 credit bureaus - it's still an oligopoly, but it's a step in the right direction.
Fair Isaac's FICO score isn't as useful as many of us here want to believe. Many banks have gone to internal measures for creditworthiness which is why one guy with a 740 score gets declined but someone with a 680 gets approved. Also, banks don't just rely on creditworthiness but on "profit versus loss" risk factors -- it might be valuable for certain banks to extend credit to someone risky because that person also may be very profitable before a chargeoff!
The #1 reason that FICO is used isn't their score but their legally prescribed "reasons for decline" responses. Banks and creditors are required by law to provide reasons for a decline -- even if they decline you for internal reasons. They pay FICO for these reasons and use them even if the real reason is something else. The law doesn't bind or require them to give EVERY reason for a decline, just give SOME reason, even if it isn't true!
VantageScores were invented by the CRAs.
As for them being a ballpark, this is pretty weak for me because when my FICO08 was 580, I had a VantageScore saying 700. That same FICO08 is now 685 and my VantageScore there dropped to 622. Totally useless to give me a ball park of anything.
CreditKarma's only benefit is a casual review of credit report changes and even there it isn't 100% accurate, but it's USEFUL. Their credit score and recommendations engine is useless for all purposes.
FICO knows it has more competition than ever in internal calculations by banks who are now spending millions a year developing their own analysis and recursion review of billions of internal data points. But they will continue to hire FICO for those reason codes!
