In all the searching and research I've done I can't believe this hasn't been tried yet. Maybe there's something I'm missing.
The FICO is not a magic number right? It must be based on a hard mathematical formula albeit one with a crapload of variables...
For you football fans out there, the QB rating at first glance seems like an arbitrary decimal number pulled out of thin air but it's actually:
a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20
b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5
c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4
d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4
a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.
QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06
The Fico formula will be exponentially more complex but there's no reason we shouldn't be able to derive it with enough data.
Now I've noticed that many of you will actually post your scores from several reports in your signatures and you aren't shy about them... with as many subscribers as there are to these forums, that is a TON of available data out there.
I propose we compile a database with scores as well as credit history, debt amounts, # and dates of credit inqueries etc. All anonymously of course. It could include several reports from the same people taken at different times... this way we would be able to calculate our own FICO scores based on the information we get for free in our annual credit reports and know EXACTLY how our score will change based on different credit activity.
Who's with me?
The FICO is not a magic number right? It must be based on a hard mathematical formula albeit one with a crapload of variables...
For you football fans out there, the QB rating at first glance seems like an arbitrary decimal number pulled out of thin air but it's actually:
a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20
b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5
c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4
d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4
a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.
QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06
The Fico formula will be exponentially more complex but there's no reason we shouldn't be able to derive it with enough data.
Now I've noticed that many of you will actually post your scores from several reports in your signatures and you aren't shy about them... with as many subscribers as there are to these forums, that is a TON of available data out there.
I propose we compile a database with scores as well as credit history, debt amounts, # and dates of credit inqueries etc. All anonymously of course. It could include several reports from the same people taken at different times... this way we would be able to calculate our own FICO scores based on the information we get for free in our annual credit reports and know EXACTLY how our score will change based on different credit activity.
Who's with me?
Starting Score: 556
Hi, ChuckG, ummm... that's pretty much what these forums are, especially this board! 
Check out Credit Scoring 101, stickied at the top of the boards. And RobertEG has a formula, although his numbers don't match mine that often. I think it's because we're in different score buckets.
Check out Credit Scoring 101, stickied at the top of the boards. And RobertEG has a formula, although his numbers don't match mine that often. I think it's because we're in different score buckets.
I read all 13 pages or so of the Credit Scoring 101 post and there was nary a mention of a FICO formula or collecting data to derive one.
All great breakthroughs are accompanied by naysayers who claim that such a thing could never be accomplished.
Please allow me to provide that service for you. 
In the words of our venerable member MV:
"Understanding FICO scoring is an oxymoron! "
"
ChuckG wrote:
The FICO is not a magic number right? It must be based on a hard mathematical formula albeit one with a crapload of variables...
The "crapload of variables" will be the hardest part. It's not a trivial problem.
As the number of variables to account for on the input increases arithmetically, the variation in potential outputs increases exponentially. To top it off, you would have to account for absolutely every variable on a report, since you wouldn't really know which of them are relevant. You would also have to account for how each variable is scored in the presence or absence of other variables.
The variables on a report number in the thousands.
Are you suggesting an attempt to reverse engineer the process inside the "black box" down to the letter with access to nothing more than said "crapload of variables" going in and a single data point coming out?
All I have to say is, "GOOD LUCK!!!"
If you didn't already know the formula to determine a QB rating, do you think you could have reverse engineered it without even knowing which specific variables are even relevant to input, let alone how they are to be manipulated in order to arrive at the final result?
Edited to add: Are you aware there are also 10 different scoring "buckets," as we like to call them around here? That means 10 slightly different algorithms. Each CRA also uses a slightly different version of the algorithms, too. So now we're up to 30 algorithms. Which bucket does a given report belong in? Whoops, that's something you'll have to reverse engineer before you can even begin reverse engineering the actual scoring algorithm for that particular bucket.
Then once you've done the impossible and figured out an algorithm for one particular bucket on one particular CRA, you'll have to repeat the impossible 29 more times.
BTW, I'm not coming down on you. Just having some fun more than anything. 
Message Edited by cheddar on 02-21-2008 08:23 PM
I didn't say it would be easy and I certainly don't believe that I'd be able to do it myself, I only took one year of calculus. But I'd be willing to give it a shot, and I'd bet there are a lot of other smart people out there who would be too if the data were available.
As for the QB rating, if You gave me 100 QB ratings and the stats which we knew were used then yes I could derive that formula.
The key ingredient being that this assumption is true: Everything in our credit report affects our FICO score to some degree... and nothing that is not reported has any affect. (with the exception of known constants like the passage of time, etc.)... It would be an exercise in futility if that assumption were not correct.
I had no idea about the different "buckets", that indeed tells us that there are score motivating factors NOT listed in the report. So we are left to play a game with our lives in which we are not given the rules. Lovely.
Oh well, it was an idea... I get ambitious sometimes, especially when it comes to fighting the system
As for the QB rating, if You gave me 100 QB ratings and the stats which we knew were used then yes I could derive that formula.
The key ingredient being that this assumption is true: Everything in our credit report affects our FICO score to some degree... and nothing that is not reported has any affect. (with the exception of known constants like the passage of time, etc.)... It would be an exercise in futility if that assumption were not correct.
I had no idea about the different "buckets", that indeed tells us that there are score motivating factors NOT listed in the report. So we are left to play a game with our lives in which we are not given the rules. Lovely.
Oh well, it was an idea... I get ambitious sometimes, especially when it comes to fighting the system
ChuckG wrote:
The key ingredient being that this assumption is true: Everything in our credit report affects our FICO score to some degree... and nothing that is not reported has any affect. (with the exception of known constants like the passage of time, etc.)... It would be an exercise in futility if that assumption were not correct.
That assumption is not correct. There are lots of things on a report that have zero effect on FICO. Employment data. Addresses. INQs more than one year old. And there are lots of things on a report that have a certain effect on FICO only when certain other conditions are met, yet have a different effect on FICO when still other conditions are met.
This is where the exponentially increasing complexity comes from.
ChuckG wrote:
I had no idea about the different "buckets", that indeed tells us that there are score motivating factors NOT listed in the report. So we are left to play a game with our lives in which we are not given the rules. Lovely.
Yep. Search the forums and you'll find LOTS of complaints about the secrecy of the algorithm and its effect on our financial lives.
Now, having said that, that's precisely what this forum is for, as HTSU said a few posts ago. While we don't know the specific algorithm, we do have at our disposal some very general rules and guidelines, which frankly, is really all you need in order to maximize your own FICO score. It's really not necessary to know the absolute specifics of the algorithm. There is quite a lot of information out there already if one doesn't mind doing a little digging.
You said you noticed that people here are not shy about posting their scores. In many cases, it's because they have brought their scores up pretty quickly, and they're proud of what they've accomplished. Those many success stories go to show that as long as you manage your credit based on the advice you can get on this forum, your score will do just fine in the long run. Knowing the exact algorithm won't really help that much.
In any case, it has been pretty well established that above 800 or so, the only thing that can help you is more age and additional clean history. Even if you knew the algorithm, you couldn't magically turn the clock forward to add the necessary ingredient of time.
ChuckG wrote:
Oh well, it was an idea... I get ambitious sometimes, especially when it comes to fighting the system
Yeah, it was a thought. Sorry to burst your bubble there.
