What is your score difference between MyFICO vs. FAKO True Credit

[Tuscani]

---

LadyFICO wrote:

Tuscani:

Was it ever opposite for you? Or has your FICO scores always been higher? Is EQ bringing up the rear for you as well?

Message Edited by LadyFICO on 05-12-2007 02:35 PM

---

Once in awhile my FAKOs are highly.. but not often.  EQ is always my lowest to.

[Anonymous]

I just signed up today for a three in one monitoring through AMEX. I was surprised to see my scores ranging from 679 to 699 and a "fair" rating for all three. This seemed pretty low as I have long established credit (around 20 years), have not had a late payment in over 5 years, although a few 30 day late ones still appear on old cards and closed auto loans (bad payment habits). Never a bankruptcy or account in collections. I have a mortgage (13+ years through a couple refinances) and home equity line all paid on-time. Several credit cards, most are dormant with zero balance. My two active cards are paid off every month for over two years and overall I have a low utilization of my credit, even though my home equity line shows as a credit card on two of the three reports. The only card that had a balance was just over $1000 on a 0% for a year offer, and that was just paid (not posted yet). I have had two inquiries in the last few months as I am switching my cards over to cash rebate cards. One Amex, one Mastercard. Neither account has hit my reports yet, but the inquiries are there. I also just signed up for MyFico and find my true FICO score is 769 and rated as excellent. This gets me thinking that the FAKO scores are designed to look low, to get people to buy (or keep buying) credit monitoring, thinking their scores are lower than they really are. The "consumer" FAKO numbers are indicating I need to work on monitoring my credit and improving my score. The true situation is I am in the top tier and there is probably not much, if anything, I need to do. Now I see the only reason to pay for monthly monitoring is to prevent fraud, which I don't worry about too much.

[smallfry]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I just signed up today for a three in one monitoring through AMEX. I was surprised to see my scores ranging from 679 to 699 and a "fair" rating for all three. This seemed pretty low as I have long established credit (around 20 years), have not had a late payment in over 5 years, although a few 30 day late ones still appear on old cards and closed auto loans (bad payment habits). Never a bankruptcy or account in collections. I have a mortgage (13+ years through a couple refinances) and home equity line all paid on-time. Several credit cards, most are dormant with zero balance. My two active cards are paid off every month for over two years and overall I have a low utilization of my credit, even though my home equity line shows as a credit card on two of the three reports. The only card that had a balance was just over $1000 on a 0% for a year offer, and that was just paid (not posted yet). I have had two inquiries in the last few months as I am switching my cards over to cash rebate cards. One Amex, one Mastercard. Neither account has hit my reports yet, but the inquiries are there. I also just signed up for MyFico and find my true FICO score is 769 and rated as excellent. This gets me thinking that the FAKO scores are designed to look low, to get people to buy (or keep buying) credit monitoring, thinking their scores are lower than they really are. The "consumer" FAKO numbers are indicating I need to work on monitoring my credit and improving my score. The true situation is I am in the top tier and there is probably not much, if anything, I need to do. Now I see the only reason to pay for monthly monitoring is to prevent fraud, which I don't worry about too much.

---

Yep. Nice score.

[Anonymous]

Okay due to recent activity and alerts I decided to buy new FICO scores and also did daily true credit pull and the results are......

FICO    TU 613 4/16/07          EQ 556 4/7/07           EX 630 4/26/07

             TU 624 5/13/07          EQ 580 5/13/07         EX 660 5/13/07

FAKO   TU 579 5/2/07            EQ 533 5/2/07           EX 524 5/2/07

             TU 579 5/13/07          EQ 591 5/13/07         EX 531 5/13/07.

             TU 582 5/15/07          EQ 591 5/15/07         EX 570 5/15/07

EX Plus Score  TU 641   5/13/07  EQ 632   5/13/07  EX 588   5/13/07

Quite a huge score difference between Experians fico and fako.

Message Edited by dekrist on 05-13-2007 12:17 PM

Message Edited by dekrist on 05-13-2007 12:51 PM

Message Edited by dekrist on 05-15-2007 11:13 AM

[Anonymous]

Dekrist,

Good job! I don't know why fako is low but the important thing is that your fico scores are much better in one case 100 points better. I'm not certain why the models are so different. Good Luck!

[Anonymous]

Tomv,

Thanks for joining the forum. Your scores are really good and I think in your case they do want you to now shift gears to identity theft whereas people like myself are targeted for rebuilding our credit. In your case it might not be a bad idea to safeguard your credit. When I get to where you are I'm hiring an armed guard!

[Tuscani]

---

Fritz wrote:

Yes, but it speaks of getting back on good terms with timely payments and creating a better relationship with the creditor, but that was not the case. I was young and a credit abuser, my mom and step dad co-signed on the car that was repo'd and then when it was repo'd they were actually the ones who took out another loan to pay that one off. I have not spoken to the Credit Union in any way shape or form since the repo in March of 2005. I actually work in the same building as the credit union, so I could go and speak to them in person, but oh that would be so nervewracking.

---

Just tailor the letter to match your unique situation. There is no standard GW form letter that applies to all. The point of the GW it to justify the reasons for being late and hope they take pity.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the welcome.

My credit has not always been this good.  I have always hated paying bills and had bad habits a few years ago of just not getting around to sitting down and writing out checks.  Online banking and automatic bill pay get the most credit for improving my scores.  I've just started researching this more as I'm better planning my credit card life.  I'm dropping my frequent flier based card and switching to cash back cards. 

After reading posts here and over at fatwallet.com it seems the FAKO scores are almost always lower than the real thing.  Getting the true FICO is much more difficult, with very few sites offering it and for much more money.  I see this as borderline intentionally deceptive to keep the credit monitoring business going.  If 50% of the responses said FAKO was typically lower and the other 50% typically higher, I could believe that it was just different formulas.  With it skewed towards the vast majority of FAKOs being substantially lower, it looks like deception to me.

Doubtful I will keep any of the services past the free trial period and I will just rely on my free annual reports unless things change.

[PCR20]

---

tomv wrote:

Thanks for the welcome.

...

After reading posts here and over at fatwallet.com it seems the FAKO scores are almost always lower than the real thing.  Getting the true FICO is much more difficult, with very few sites offering it and for much more money.  I see this as borderline intentionally deceptive to keep the credit monitoring business going.  If 50% of the responses said FAKO was typically lower and the other 50% typically higher, I could believe that it was just different formulas.  With it skewed towards the vast majority of FAKOs being substantially lower, it looks like deception to me.

Doubtful I will keep any of the services past the free trial period and I will just rely on my free annual reports unless things change.

---

This might sound a bit conspiracy theorist, but...

It does seem odd how off-the-mark TC is with their scores.

I believe in coincidences, where maybe a few scores might be lower but this is more like 95% are lower. It also makes sense that TC's scoring lower would prompt people to keep the monitoring. What fun would it really be to see you score stay the same every month just because you paid all of your bills on time and carry debit.

On the flip side, I think EQ's idea is to let MyFICO and TC do their work for them.

Why pay people good money to maintain their database when all you need to do is nothing and let the consumer tell you what needs to be corrected. This would explain why EQ is usually lower than TU and EX. Only negative items need to be prompted for removal. I mean really, how many times does anyone need to contact EQ and tell them to add a missing positive factor?

[MercyMe]

Who knows how fast the grass will grow?  Could be 12-18 for me, Lady.