@Anonymous wrote:The only thing I know for sure is...I don't know. But I've tried to reason this through. Here's where that is taking me.
You've got to look at where this data was published. It wasn't on the front page of the local newspaper. Edgars is a financial publisher, usually of interest only to those in the trade. It publishes information on publicly held companies, and their officers and stockholders. For the protection of the public, this information is required by the SEC to be made available to the public through company filings and/or shareholder filings. Transparency is what the SEC is looking for here. Edgars just aggregates the required filings and disseminates it to the public.
Something else to consider is what actually happens to a mortgage once a loan has been granted on it. The bank that gave the homebuyer the check needs its money back. It resells the mortgage in some form. The mortgage is now a security, comprised of two elements; the property (fair market value/equity) and the debtor's financial strength (FICO/debt ratios). Each of those elements is necessary to place a value on this security. Without these elements, there can be no transparency in this security, which will be offered for sale to investors. The investor gauges the risk/reward and makes his decision on whether to buy this mortgage-backed security or not. When the risk is too great for his potential reward, he doesn't buy that security.
Our current meltdown happened because these securities were bundled, and rebundled, over and over again until they were unrecognizable. Nobody could see the underlying values (as in what the property was and who the debtor was), so bad decisions were made by greedy interests who should have known better, but either did not or just did not care. And here we are.
The published FICO score and debt ratios are relevant to the financial instrument. The name of the debtor is not relevant, but that is public information anyways. Those FICO score and debt ratio numbers have undoubtedly changed, they are inherently fluid numbers anyways and change from one day to the next. The snapshot of what these were at the time the mortgage loan was issued only gauges the risk/reward for that instrument for a potential investor. Without that transparency, everything grinds to a halt because there would be no investors investing in mortgage-backed securities.
So, I think what we've got here is a question of public good vs. personal privacy . The mortgage application that was signed by the debtor likely indicated that the information contained on it, and any related information critical to the granting of the loan, could be shared among parties necessary for completing the transaction. And without investor funding, the money most likely wouldn't be available in the first place, hence the needed transparency, including the personal information.
That's where my thinking has taken me anyways. As always, further input from others is appreciated.
On another note, I'd be a bit more concerned about other databases containing personal information that are easily viewable by those who know how to find them. That grocery shopping card your wife uses to get the discounts keys her purchases into a database, which reveals much more about you, your family and your lifestyle than any real estate/mortgage transaction records.
To sum it all up, the solution to this problem is...stop looking. You will always find things you don't think should be there, there's not a lot you can do about it, and you'll drive yourself crazy.
Unless one can show a compelling interest otherwise, personal privacy trumps public interest. Prime examples of such compelling interest that we see every day are, in some states, criminal conviction records and data maintained in certain state databases. I find no compelling reason why one's credit score needs to be made public against one's wishes.
If and when we decide that there is a compelling interest in making that data public, then the legal standard is generally that which places the least restrictions on personal privacy. In other words, is there a less restrictive way to accomplish the same task? Can an investor adequately consider risk if the FICO score were accompanied by, say, a personal numeric identifier? Could they adequately judge risk by taking an average of all FICO scores that compromise those in the bundle without making a FICO identifiable on an individual basis? Is there a better method to disclose data to potential investors than posting it online for even non-investors to see? Is the debtor's name even relevant to an investor?
Something tells me that were I to run into a client with a case such as this and I took it, I could turn it into a high-profile, successful class action and with my fees probably buy the State of Virginia. 
P.S. Now that I've thought about it, I don't want Virginia. I'd buy Montana and Wyoming. 
I agree wholeheartedly that the debtors' names are not at all relevant to the security being sold, and I think a numeric (or other identifier) could suffice. Now all we've got to do is to convince the banking industry and the SEC, who may be concerned about verifying the information contained in any securities offering. Who do they verify that information with, the very bank who is selling the security? I see a problem with that, and I think they would, too.
I don't agree with averaging of the FICOs. It's impossible to get a clear understanding of actual risk with an averaging of those scores, unless it was a segmented averaging, as in "20% of this bundle have FICOs of 650, 80% have FICOs of 730" or some such breakdown of the numbers. That could work.
As far as online postings go, the internet is not going to go away. The personal information is the question, not the medium. This information has always been a part of these types of securities offerings, and available to anyone who cares to search for it. The medium just makes that search easier.
The OP himself has stated he had to pick through 1000s of pages of info to even come up with his own info. Again, this wasn't published on the front page of his hometown paper. The information is being published for its intended purpose to those having a legitimate business interest in it.
There is a choice, though, if personal privacy is the major concern. Don't take out a mortgage loan, but if you do, make sure (before applying) that it will stay in-house and never be bundled as a security, which requires transparency.
When you take on this case, please add a little something in it for me...
...I'd like to not be compelled to use my SSN for identification. The SSA, and the card they issued to me, says specifically that the number assigned is not to be used in that manner. But all the d*mn banks want that SSN before giving me any money...it ain't right, and I want action...now, dammit!!
I'll be your Sancho Panza, and when we get to Wyoming and Montana (good choices, BTW), I'll buy the Glenmorangie! 
@Anonymous wrote:I agree wholeheartedly that the debtors' names are not at all relevant to the security being sold, and I think a numeric (or other identifier) could suffice. Now all we've got to do is to convince the banking industry and the SEC, who may be concerned about verifying the information contained in any securities offering. Who do they verify that information with, the very bank who is selling the security? I see a problem with that, and I think they would, too.
I don't agree with averaging of the FICOs. It's impossible to get a clear understanding of actual risk with an averaging of those scores, unless it was a segmented averaging, as in "20% of this bundle have FICOs of 650, 80% have FICOs of 730" or some such breakdown of the numbers. That could work.
As far as online postings go, the internet is not going to go away. The personal information is the question, not the medium. This information has always been a part of these types of securities offerings, and available to anyone who cares to search for it. The medium just makes that search easier.
The OP himself has stated he had to pick through 1000s of pages of info to even come up with his own info. Again, this wasn't published on the front page of his hometown paper. The information is being published for its intended purpose to those having a legitimate business interest in it.
There is a choice, though, if personal privacy is the major concern. Don't take out a mortgage loan, but if you do, make sure (before applying) that it will stay in-house and never be bundled as a security, which requires transparency.
When you take on this case, please add a little something in it for me...
...I'd like to not be compelled to use my SSN for identification. The SSA, and the card they issued to me, says specifically that the number assigned is not to be used in that manner. But all the d*mn banks want that SSN before giving me any money...it ain't right, and I want action...now, dammit!!
I'll be your Sancho Panza, and when we get to Wyoming and Montana (good choices, BTW), I'll buy the Glenmorangie!
It still bothers me.
I think each security is made up of hundreds if not thousands of individual mortgages so I can't see where individual identifying information is relevant to a potential investor or even, for that matter, individual FICO scores. Wouldn't it be enough to say that the average for this particular security is, say, 700 with none below 680? It's not like the investor can verify a homeowner's actual data without committing a felony so they'd have to rely on the information given to them by the mortgage holder.
Anyhow, I think that the information OP mentions can be found online because somehow, somewhere some guy with a pointy head just didn't think about the consequences. If one's credit score weren't so personal, we'd all be using our real names on myfico.com with our scores in our signature line. Or it wouldn't be a felony to pull someone else's score without their permission. Heck, in most states you can walk into the state police records section, plop down $25 and get a record of convictions on each of your neighbors. Try that with someone's credit information and you're looking at a 5 - 10 year "sabbatical" of sorts.
Something tells me I need to brush up on my riding skills because I'm gonna be spending a lot of time on my horse while surveying my new 244,983 square mile ranch.
I'll let you carry two important positions:
1. Head of the joint state police (Wyana State Police); and
2. Head of the CC department at State Bank of Wyana.
