I no longer trust MYFICO reports and scores

[Imhotrodcrazy]

I pulled my EQ report here today and just like my EX I pulled a few days ago has blatant errors on them.  My EQ states "that I'm  not using credit",  when in fact the report shows that I have a credit card balance of $317.   This resulted in a 14 point drop in my score.  They look foolish when they contradict themselves in the same report.  Errors on my Myfico EX report resulted in a 44 drop in my score.  IMO,  the Fico reports here are no better than CreditKarma and the rest of the freebies out there.  I will not throw money down the drain for incorrect reports.   Just my 2 cents.   

[Revelate]

---

@Imhotrodcrazy wrote:

I pulled my EQ report here today and just like my EX I pulled a few days ago has blatant errors on them.  My EQ states "that I'm  not using credit",  when in fact the report shows that I have a credit card balance of $317.   This resulted in a 14 point drop in my score.  They look foolish when they contradict themselves in the same report.  Errors on my Myfico EX report resulted in a 44 drop in my score.  IMO,  the Fico reports here are no better than CreditKarma and the rest of the freebies out there.  I will not throw money down the drain for incorrect reports.   Just my 2 cents.   

---

myFICO doesn't calculate the score, nor does it list the reasons as I understand it: absolutely the first comes from the bureau, and I believe the second does as well.

While I can sort of agree with your point regarding paying for score pulls as there are legitimate complaints with the way the industry is currently setup, this isn't one of them.  If your score dropped, it's because of the data the bureaus have, not on the third party data representation.  That is nearly an absolute fact.

ETA: unless the software developers at FICO are less than competent, and that's patently unlikely. There'd be a lot more complaints if this was a regular occurrence, the score should be a simple pass through from whatever EQ / EX / TU software interface / library the bureau provides.

[Imhotrodcrazy]

With all due respect I will stand my ground on this one.  Wrong is wrong, and to sell a report with blatant errors on it is also wrong.  I don't have a torch to carry here, I just  don't believe in the system and I certainly will not pay for it again.  Thanks for your response however.

[Anonymous]

I pulled my EX report from USAA this morning, and it doesn't have a CC on it that I've had since October.  The inquiry is there, but not the tradeline itself.

I don't know where the problem is  -- it could either be the underlying report itself, or the monitoring service.

If it's the report, the USAA/EX monitoring service has no way of correcting it.

At some point I will pay the $10 to look at my actual EX report directly and see what's on it.

[Revelate]

---

@Imhotrodcrazy wrote:

With all due respect I will stand my ground on this one.  Wrong is wrong, and to sell a report with blatant errors on it is also wrong.  I don't have a torch to carry here, I just  don't believe in the system and I certainly will not pay for it again.  Thanks for your response however.

---

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and FWIW I rarely pay for scores: there are enough free options that I just don't need to with my use case.

That said, accuracy is important, and your statements aren't realistic based on the way things have worked in the industry (which I do have direct knowledge of having worked in lenders and having direct access to their underwriting systems on the operations side) from a software perspective for about a decade or even longer.

That's all I'm trying to state: I think if you look at my postings you'll find I'm often walking the line of not bashing the consumer side of FICO - there's plenty of things which could be done to make this and even the products at myFICO more consumer friendly, but I still give credit where credit is due, and this one isn't FICO's fault.  Not paying for scores, no problem, but assess and address the problem where it actually is.  I couldn't care less if you or other people don't pull their scores from here as I'm just a volunteer anyway, but I do take exception when someone's opinion can falsely (in my opinion, not in a legal sense) tarnish a set of products which do have a legitimate use case in the market today... and the consumer side of the house is better for having them.

ETA: if you really feel this strongly about it contact a CSR directly or drop a note in the Product Feedback forum (or I can just move this thread I suppose)

[Imhotrodcrazy]

---

@Revelate wrote:

 

ETA: if you really feel this strongly about it contact a CSR directly or drop a note in the Product Feedback forum (or I can just move this thread I suppose)

---

My opinion does'nt tarnish the product, the product does that on its own. 

Edit:  I don't care about the money.  I was only voicing my opinion on the credibility, or lack there of, of the Myfico reports. 

[DaveSignal]

I think what Revelate is trying to say is that regardless of what the third party report says at myFICO, you got your FICO score.  It is the same score you would get if a lender pulled the same FICO version from the same CRA.   If your score has dropped, there is something on the report from the CRA that you might want to take note of and attempt to correct.

[pizzadude]

---

@Imhotrodcrazy wrote:

I pulled my EQ report here today and just like my EX I pulled a few days ago has blatant errors on them.  My EQ states "that I'm  not using credit",  when in fact the report shows that I have a credit card balance of $317.   This resulted in a 14 point drop in my score.  They look foolish when they contradict themselves in the same report.  Errors on my Myfico EX report resulted in a 44 drop in my score.  IMO,  the Fico reports here are no better than CreditKarma and the rest of the freebies out there.  I will not throw money down the drain for incorrect reports.   Just my 2 cents.   

---

I'm curious as to what overall utilization and individual card utilization is being reported.   While a $317 balance does in fact show credit use, it could be the relative use of credit in relation to credit limits is what is driving this message.

[Imhotrodcrazy]

---

@pizzadude wrote:

I'm curious as to what overall utilization and individual card utilization is being reported.   While a $317 balance does in fact show credit use, it could be the relative use of credit in relation to credit limits is what is driving this message.

---

The $317 represents 1.6% utility on my US Bank Cash + card which has a credit line of $19,500.  I paid $1,800  in full before my statement cut.  The $317 was what was charged between statement date and the end of the month reporting by the bank.  My other other two cards have a zero balance.  Those two lines both have 15k limits.  Some say just let a few dollars report on one card and it shows credit use.  However, that doesn't seem to work on my report.  Thanks for the input and help.  

[pizzadude]

---

@Imhotrodcrazy wrote:

---

@pizzadude wrote:

I'm curious as to what overall utilization and individual card utilization is being reported.   While a $317 balance does in fact show credit use, it could be the relative use of credit in relation to credit limits is what is driving this message.

---

The $317 represents 1.6% utility on my US Bank Cash + card which has a credit line of $19,500.  I paid $1,800  in full before my statement cut.  The $317 was what was charged between statement date and the end of the month reporting by the bank.  My other other two cards have a zero balance.  Those two lines both have 15k limits.  Some say just let a few dollars report on one card and it shows credit use.  However, that doesn't seem to work on my report.  Thanks for the input and help.  

---

I think it's because you're using such a small percentage of your overall revolving credit.    By my calculations it's 0.6%, which might be rounded down to zero by FICO scoring, hence the message about not using credit.

I'm certain that if you let a larger balance report you'll regain those lost FICO points.