By: Shonnie Fischer - CreditCRM Affilaite
Of all of the questions I get regarding consumer credit reporting and credit scoring, collection account inquiries seems to be at the top of the list on a daily basis. This months newsletter is dedicated to the subject of collection accounts and what affect they have on a consumers credit report. Additionally, the most prevalent “credit myths” associated with collection accounts will also be addressed in this article. Far too often myth vs. fact gets passed onto the consumer which in most cases causes further undue damage to the consumers credit report and scores respectively.
Most consumers have a general understanding of what a collection account is. By definition, a collection account occurs if you stop paying on any type of debt where a balance is owed and remains unpaid per the terms of the original agreement contractually entered into by the consumer and financial entity. The lender then takes action to collect on the unpaid and/or deficiency balance by transferring the status of the account from a routine account to a collection account. The lender may have an internal collection department that will then take over the account to collect on, or the lender may sell or assign your account to a outside third party collection agency. Either way the bottom line and single objective is to collect on the remaining debt owed.
Pretty basic so far.....
Collection agencies specialize in collecting money from people who refuse to pay their debt. A collection agency’s main leverage over a consumer, which is also the single most important motivational tactic they use to get a consumer to pay, is by reporting the collection account to the credit bureaus. Any collection activity that reports to the credit bureaus will hurt your FICO® scores. Even if it is a single collection account that reports, you can expect a significant drop in your credit scores once it hits the credit bureaus. As you can imagine, having multiple collection accounts will cause your credit score to plummet even further as you are adding multiple layers of major derogatory information a.k.a “risk” to your credit file.
With respect to the FICO® credit scoring system, collection accounts are considered a major derogatory “event”. When a collection account is reported, the FICO® credit scoring software considers two things and two things only when factoring in a collection account into the credit scoring system. The first factor is that collection account activity exists and is a part of your credit file, which as previously stated is considered a major derogatory account. The second factor is the age of the account relative to the date of original delinquency with the original creditor that lead to the collection account having to be established in the first place. Specifically, this particular credit scoring component as explained is the perfect segue into our first two (and most prevalent) credit myths.
Myth #1- Paying Off A Collection Account Will Increase A Consumers Credit Score.
This is absolutely false!! If you pay off a collection account, typically the effect on the credit score will be neutral. If your scores do increase it will not be by much - guaranteed! Whether or not a collection is reported as paid or unpaid is NOT a credit scoring component. What the FICO® credit scoring system factors in is the fact that you went to collection in the first place. As stated above collection accounts are scored as “events” with the only other credit scoring factor being the age of the account. Collection accounts regardless of the paid vs. unpaid status are indicative of your previous payment history and therefore used as a predictive measure of future credit risk as assessed in the credit scoring software.
The Fair Isaac Corporation, the creators of the FICO® credit scoring software have this information posted on their website myfico.com under the following link: http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/Questions/Collections.aspx.
Myth #2- Paying Off Collection Accounts Will Remove It From Your Credit File.
Again, totally false. Unfortunately this where most consumers make an incorrect assumption only to find the account still remains on their report the next time their credit gets pulled. Paying off a collection account will not cause or force automatic removal from your credit report. What will happen once the account is paid, is the balance is updated to reflect the account has been paid in full and the account will continue to report accordingly. Collection accounts whether paid or unpaid along with derogatory information outside of public records, can report for up to 7 years based upon the date of original delinquency with the original creditor. Prevalent with lending and/or industry professionals, the next myth we will address is not so much a consumer credit myth as it is one that is more common with lending specific and/or industry professionals who work with analyzing consumer credit.
Myth #3- Paying Off Collection Accounts Does Not Lower A Consumers Credit Score.
In all fairness, this is a current myth that is based on a past truth. So those of you reading this article who knew this to be the case in days past, let me confirm you are not losing your mind. In previous credit scoring models (still commercially available as late as 2008) when a collection account was paid off it would update the date of last activity which in turn would report into the credit scoring software as if it were a brand new collection account. The date of last activity used to be a credit scoring component in the FICO® credit scoring software, however in 2007 the Fair Isaac Corporation agreed with debt collectors
that a consumer should not be penalized for paying off old debt accounts. While it is true that any current activity causes the date of last activity to reset, FICO® has revised their scoring software to only consider the date of original delinquency for scoring purposes.
To further validate that this is in fact a current truth vs. future feature to come, in September 2009 John Ulzheimer, credit scoring and credit reporting expert and author who is also the President of Consumer Education for Credit.com, went straight to the source and interviewed Ethan Dornhelm, Principal Scientist at FICO® who is also a FICO® score developer to get further clarity on this subject. Mr. Dornhelm confirmed that “The FICO® score is focused on the presence of the collection and how recently the collection occurred. This is true at all credit bureaus and across all generations of the FICO® scoring models still
commercially available today.”
So now that we have covered what a collection account is, what impact it has on a consumers credit score, as well as the most prevalent credit myths associated with collection accounts, what is the best way to handle collection accounts or recover from the adverse affect they have on a consumers credit report?
1- The most obvious answer is to avoid them all together. Pay your bills on time and if ever you find yourself in a financially distressed situation, try to work out a payment plan with the creditor prior to them having to take further collection
action. Be proactive and be honest about your situation with creditors. This is not always going to be an across the board resolve, but at least it lets the creditor know that your are not intentionally disregarding your obligation to pay them. They may or may not do a work out plan with you, however it is worth the effort to contact them first vs. having them assume the worst case which will without question be to start immediate collection action against you to collect on the money owed to them.
2- If number one can not be avoided and an account has already gone into collection, work with the collection agency and try to negotiate deletion of the account in exchange for payment. Not every collection agency will negotiate these types of terms, however I can tell you from my own personal experience that four out of five will. Collection agencies work on commission and/or a consignment fee basis, so at the end of the day they are truly only interested in collecting on the debt and typically will negotiate for deletion when payment in full is received. For consumers this is well worth doing the leg work to try and negotiate this type of agreement with them as this is THE ONLY way to get a valid collection account completely removed from your credit report.
3- If you have a collection account that you do not agree with, or do not believe belongs to you, you do have rights under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act to dispute the debt. Ignoring the debt or otherwise refusing to pay the collection agency to punish them for what you perceive to be their error is not the way to get this resolved. This type of action will only continue to hurt you as collection agencies are famous for selling debt multiple times over if uncollectible. Each time that happens it adds additional new collection activity to your credit report causing a layer effect. You do have rights under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act that allow you to properly and legally dispute the validity of a collection account reporting on your credit report. A summary of your rights is available on the RE Credit Repair website under the Credit Resources section link: http://www.recreditfix.com/credit_resources.php I hope you have enjoyed this publication and it has provided you some clarification and/or helped you to better understand collection accounts in general. Trust me - speaking from personal experience this is one of the most complex areas outside of credit scoring itself to master. If you have any further questions or need personal assistance regarding collection accounts or any other credit related matter please contact me direct via email or my office line anytime.
All my best to you and thank you for reading this months publication.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Calculating Utilization, Let Me Count The Ways
I think I’ve written about utilization, the relationship between the balances and credit limits on credit cards expressed as a percentage, for as long as I’ve owned a computer. But this topic has legs as everlasting as the Gobstopper which shares the adjective. So, for the first time in 2010 and what has to be the 100th time overall, here’s how utilization is calculated.
First off, utilization 101…Mark has a credit card with a $1,000 credit limit. That is, his credit reports show a $1,000 credit limit. His current balance as reported on his credit reports is $500. The utilization of that card is 50% because the balance ($500) divided by the credit limit ($1,000) equals .50 or 50%. Now we can get started.
It’s important to note that the figures I use for my next few examples HAVE to be reported on your credit reports to make these math problems accurate. That’s the bottom line. If it’s not on our credit report then all bets are off.
Line Item Utilization – This is the same calculation as described above for Mark but done for every single open credit card or credit card with a balance. So if you have 10 open credit cards, and open in this examples means it’s not closed, then you’ll have 10 different line item measurements. This is important because the number of highly utilized credit cards on your credit report is a consideration in most credit and insurance risk models.
Aggregate Utilization – This is the same calculation as described above for Mark with one huge difference. For this calculation we are going to combine all of the open credit cards on a credit report to do the math. For example, if I have two credit cards and each has a $5,000 balance and a $10,000 credit limit then I have $10,000 in aggregate balances and $20,000 in aggregate credit limits. Divide $10,000 by $20,000 and you again get .50 or 50%. This measurement is important because the higher utilization the percentage the more risky you are to lenders and insurance companies and the less attractive their terms will be.
High Balance in Lieu of Credit Limits – In some cases your credit cards will not have a credit limit reported. (Note: I’m not talking about charge cards. I’m talking about revolving credit cards that are not reporting a credit limit). In those cases most credit scoring models will look for the historical highest balance, which is typically reported by the credit bureaus, and use that figure in lieu of the missing credit limit. So, if I have a credit card with a $10,000 credit limit but it’s not being reported then the credit score will look for my highest balance figure. If it finds, for example, that your highest historical balance was $7,500 then that’s the figure it will use in lieu of the missing $10,000. So, with my same $5,000 balance and a $7,500 “pseudo limit” I appear to be 67% utilized on that card instead of the true 50%. This is a line item measurement and an aggregate measurement, meaning it is the same regardless of which is being calculated. This practice of withholding credit limits got the credit bureaus sued in a class action case several years ago because Capital One was not reporting credit limits. The case was dismissed because, in my opinion, the court simply couldn’t grasp the details of the problem and the breadth of its impact. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed Capital One began reporting credit limits for the first time in their existence. So, some good did come out of the case.
Missing High Balance and Missing Credit Limit - Now this is a tricky one. In some examples a credit card account will be missing the credit limit and the highest balance. Most credit scoring systems will simply ignore the account for the above referenced utilization calculations because, well, you have no limit to include in the math. This can help the consumer’s scores and it can also hurt the consumer’s scores. For example, if you have a very high balance on that particular credit card but no limit or high credit then that balance can’t increase your aggregate utilization because it’s ignored for that math. It can hurt your score in the example where you have a very low balance relative to the credit limit, which isn’t reported because you don’t get any value of the large difference between the balance and the limit, which is called open-to-buy.
Shadow Limits – A shadow limit isn’t a credit card that’s been left under a leafy tree. Instead it’s the unpublished maximum preset spending limit that all credit cards have, even charge cards that are marketed as not having a preset spending limit. That would suggest that you could use your charge card to buy a $100,000 Mercedes, if the dealership took plastic for such a purchase. And while some very wealthy individuals might be given that amount of shopping power, it’s atypical. The shadow limit is not reported to the credit bureaus so the high balance is the next best figure to use when calculating utilization. And if it’s a charge card the newer FICO scores will not count it in utilization at all. There are, however, revolving credit cards that are also marketed as not having a preset spending limit and, thus, a shadow limit.
The moral of this story is simple; you’d like to do business with credit card issuers who do report the credit limit to all three credit bureaus. It give you the ability to strategically use that card so that you never exceed some self applied utilization percentage. For example, if you know your credit card has a credit limit of $10,000 (and it’s being reported to the credit bureaus) and you never want to exceed 10% utilization on that card then you know you can never allow more than $1,000 to be reported to the credit bureaus as a balance.
First off, utilization 101…Mark has a credit card with a $1,000 credit limit. That is, his credit reports show a $1,000 credit limit. His current balance as reported on his credit reports is $500. The utilization of that card is 50% because the balance ($500) divided by the credit limit ($1,000) equals .50 or 50%. Now we can get started.
It’s important to note that the figures I use for my next few examples HAVE to be reported on your credit reports to make these math problems accurate. That’s the bottom line. If it’s not on our credit report then all bets are off.
Line Item Utilization – This is the same calculation as described above for Mark but done for every single open credit card or credit card with a balance. So if you have 10 open credit cards, and open in this examples means it’s not closed, then you’ll have 10 different line item measurements. This is important because the number of highly utilized credit cards on your credit report is a consideration in most credit and insurance risk models.
Aggregate Utilization – This is the same calculation as described above for Mark with one huge difference. For this calculation we are going to combine all of the open credit cards on a credit report to do the math. For example, if I have two credit cards and each has a $5,000 balance and a $10,000 credit limit then I have $10,000 in aggregate balances and $20,000 in aggregate credit limits. Divide $10,000 by $20,000 and you again get .50 or 50%. This measurement is important because the higher utilization the percentage the more risky you are to lenders and insurance companies and the less attractive their terms will be.
High Balance in Lieu of Credit Limits – In some cases your credit cards will not have a credit limit reported. (Note: I’m not talking about charge cards. I’m talking about revolving credit cards that are not reporting a credit limit). In those cases most credit scoring models will look for the historical highest balance, which is typically reported by the credit bureaus, and use that figure in lieu of the missing credit limit. So, if I have a credit card with a $10,000 credit limit but it’s not being reported then the credit score will look for my highest balance figure. If it finds, for example, that your highest historical balance was $7,500 then that’s the figure it will use in lieu of the missing $10,000. So, with my same $5,000 balance and a $7,500 “pseudo limit” I appear to be 67% utilized on that card instead of the true 50%. This is a line item measurement and an aggregate measurement, meaning it is the same regardless of which is being calculated. This practice of withholding credit limits got the credit bureaus sued in a class action case several years ago because Capital One was not reporting credit limits. The case was dismissed because, in my opinion, the court simply couldn’t grasp the details of the problem and the breadth of its impact. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed Capital One began reporting credit limits for the first time in their existence. So, some good did come out of the case.
Missing High Balance and Missing Credit Limit - Now this is a tricky one. In some examples a credit card account will be missing the credit limit and the highest balance. Most credit scoring systems will simply ignore the account for the above referenced utilization calculations because, well, you have no limit to include in the math. This can help the consumer’s scores and it can also hurt the consumer’s scores. For example, if you have a very high balance on that particular credit card but no limit or high credit then that balance can’t increase your aggregate utilization because it’s ignored for that math. It can hurt your score in the example where you have a very low balance relative to the credit limit, which isn’t reported because you don’t get any value of the large difference between the balance and the limit, which is called open-to-buy.
Shadow Limits – A shadow limit isn’t a credit card that’s been left under a leafy tree. Instead it’s the unpublished maximum preset spending limit that all credit cards have, even charge cards that are marketed as not having a preset spending limit. That would suggest that you could use your charge card to buy a $100,000 Mercedes, if the dealership took plastic for such a purchase. And while some very wealthy individuals might be given that amount of shopping power, it’s atypical. The shadow limit is not reported to the credit bureaus so the high balance is the next best figure to use when calculating utilization. And if it’s a charge card the newer FICO scores will not count it in utilization at all. There are, however, revolving credit cards that are also marketed as not having a preset spending limit and, thus, a shadow limit.
The moral of this story is simple; you’d like to do business with credit card issuers who do report the credit limit to all three credit bureaus. It give you the ability to strategically use that card so that you never exceed some self applied utilization percentage. For example, if you know your credit card has a credit limit of $10,000 (and it’s being reported to the credit bureaus) and you never want to exceed 10% utilization on that card then you know you can never allow more than $1,000 to be reported to the credit bureaus as a balance.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What Did We Experience in 2009 and What Should We Do in 2010?
2009 was a historical year in the world of consumer credit. We saw property values decline, lenders stop lending, credit card issuers crank up their abusive behavior, a new Federal law passed and a historically high number of credit related lawsuits. The following is a brief synopsis of 2009 and what consumer should do to put themselves in the best possible position for 2010.
Many of us received a letter (or letters) from our credit card issuers with similar messages;
· Your credit line has been lowered to reflect your spending
· Your account has been closed because we believe your card is being used in a manner inconsistent with your Cardmember agreement
· Given the size of your credit line and the way you have historically used your account, we have adjusted your credit line
· We are increasing the Annual Percentage Rates (APR) on your account to 25.49%
· A new service charge of $10 per month will be applied to your account
2009 was surely the year of the credit card issuer’s reign of terror against their cardholders. According to various surveys at least 35% of the population acknowledged experiencing some sort of adverse change to the terms of their credit card account. And, according to two FICO studies the median score for consumer who saw their credit limits involuntarily reduced was 770, which means that credit line decrease really didn’t have anything to do with elevated credit risk.
Of course this abusive behavior lead to the passage of the Credit Card Responsibility, Accountability and Disclosure Act of 2009, or CARD Act for short. This act provides the following rights to cardholders, among others…
· A guaranteed 21 day grace period on payments
· 45 days advance notice of any interest rate increases
· Tough rules around issuing credit cards to consumers who are under 21 years old
· Restrictions on when card issuers can increase your interest rates, and a method whereby consumers can earn back their lower rates by making their payments on time
· Clearer disclosure of account terms before an account is opened
· Restrictions on over limit fees. If a consumer has not “opted in” to allow a credit card issuer to approve a transaction that puts you in an over limit positions, they have to either decline the transaction or not charge you the over limit fee
· No additional fees because of the method of payment
· No more double cycle billing, the method of using the prior month’s balance to determine interest charges for the current month
· Application of payments above the minimum now have to be applied to the balance with the highest interest rate
· Gift cards won’t be able to expire for at least five years. And inactivity fees on gift cards will be banned
Unfortunately 2009 continued to produce decreased property values, which means no equity or worse, negative equity. And while consumers are comfortable with negative equity in their auto loans, they are not used to negative equity in their homes. Your home is your largest investment and it has historically increased in value. This leads to wealth building, a sizable tax deduction, and access to capital in order to send children to college, pay down credit card debt or fund home improvements.
The loss of home equity also lead to a significant number of home equity lines (HELOCs) being cancelled by lenders. A HELOC had always been a secured loan, secured by the perceived value in your home. But, with the home values dropping many HELOCS became huge unsecured lines of credit and many lenders simply weren’t comfortable with the lines any longer. The problem with the cancellations is that most consumers were never notified that their equity lines had been cancelled and didn’t find out until they wrote a check from the line, a large check in many cases, which bounced.
2009 was also a banner year for attorneys involved in credit related litigation, specifically Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuits. The total number of these lawsuits filed in 2009 was over 8,000, which is more than any other previous year. Most experts predict similar numbers in 2010 because collectors are continuing aggressive collection tactics and more and more consumers are using the law to get legitimate errors removed from their credit reports.
In most years past filing a lawsuit to get something erroneous removed from your credit reports was an expensive and lesser-pursued strategy. But, with lenders increasing their minimum credit score requirements spending the money in order to have credit score-damaging errors corrected or removed actually is a newly smart investment.
So what should I do in 2010 in order to position myself in the best place? You can find yourself almost completely exempt from the credit crunch by doing two things; getting out of credit card debt and increasing your credit scores. By getting yourself out of credit card debt it allows you to escape the abusive treatment by lenders. Remember, things like interest rate and minimum payment increases only matter if you carry a balance. Getting out of and staying out of credit card debt puts you in a very enviable position. This is old advice that has taken on a new level of importance.
A second byproduct of getting out of credit card debt is the significant benefit to your credit scores. “Debt” makes up a whopping 30% of the points in your FICO® scores, which places it a close second behind whether or not you have negative information on your credit reports. And as many people have learned the hard way, the minimum score requirements to not only qualify but also qualify at the best interest rates have become more difficult to satisfy.
This means higher FICO scores equals approvals where in the past a higher FICO score meant an approval with the best rates.
Many of us received a letter (or letters) from our credit card issuers with similar messages;
· Your credit line has been lowered to reflect your spending
· Your account has been closed because we believe your card is being used in a manner inconsistent with your Cardmember agreement
· Given the size of your credit line and the way you have historically used your account, we have adjusted your credit line
· We are increasing the Annual Percentage Rates (APR) on your account to 25.49%
· A new service charge of $10 per month will be applied to your account
2009 was surely the year of the credit card issuer’s reign of terror against their cardholders. According to various surveys at least 35% of the population acknowledged experiencing some sort of adverse change to the terms of their credit card account. And, according to two FICO studies the median score for consumer who saw their credit limits involuntarily reduced was 770, which means that credit line decrease really didn’t have anything to do with elevated credit risk.
Of course this abusive behavior lead to the passage of the Credit Card Responsibility, Accountability and Disclosure Act of 2009, or CARD Act for short. This act provides the following rights to cardholders, among others…
· A guaranteed 21 day grace period on payments
· 45 days advance notice of any interest rate increases
· Tough rules around issuing credit cards to consumers who are under 21 years old
· Restrictions on when card issuers can increase your interest rates, and a method whereby consumers can earn back their lower rates by making their payments on time
· Clearer disclosure of account terms before an account is opened
· Restrictions on over limit fees. If a consumer has not “opted in” to allow a credit card issuer to approve a transaction that puts you in an over limit positions, they have to either decline the transaction or not charge you the over limit fee
· No additional fees because of the method of payment
· No more double cycle billing, the method of using the prior month’s balance to determine interest charges for the current month
· Application of payments above the minimum now have to be applied to the balance with the highest interest rate
· Gift cards won’t be able to expire for at least five years. And inactivity fees on gift cards will be banned
Unfortunately 2009 continued to produce decreased property values, which means no equity or worse, negative equity. And while consumers are comfortable with negative equity in their auto loans, they are not used to negative equity in their homes. Your home is your largest investment and it has historically increased in value. This leads to wealth building, a sizable tax deduction, and access to capital in order to send children to college, pay down credit card debt or fund home improvements.
The loss of home equity also lead to a significant number of home equity lines (HELOCs) being cancelled by lenders. A HELOC had always been a secured loan, secured by the perceived value in your home. But, with the home values dropping many HELOCS became huge unsecured lines of credit and many lenders simply weren’t comfortable with the lines any longer. The problem with the cancellations is that most consumers were never notified that their equity lines had been cancelled and didn’t find out until they wrote a check from the line, a large check in many cases, which bounced.
2009 was also a banner year for attorneys involved in credit related litigation, specifically Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuits. The total number of these lawsuits filed in 2009 was over 8,000, which is more than any other previous year. Most experts predict similar numbers in 2010 because collectors are continuing aggressive collection tactics and more and more consumers are using the law to get legitimate errors removed from their credit reports.
In most years past filing a lawsuit to get something erroneous removed from your credit reports was an expensive and lesser-pursued strategy. But, with lenders increasing their minimum credit score requirements spending the money in order to have credit score-damaging errors corrected or removed actually is a newly smart investment.
So what should I do in 2010 in order to position myself in the best place? You can find yourself almost completely exempt from the credit crunch by doing two things; getting out of credit card debt and increasing your credit scores. By getting yourself out of credit card debt it allows you to escape the abusive treatment by lenders. Remember, things like interest rate and minimum payment increases only matter if you carry a balance. Getting out of and staying out of credit card debt puts you in a very enviable position. This is old advice that has taken on a new level of importance.
A second byproduct of getting out of credit card debt is the significant benefit to your credit scores. “Debt” makes up a whopping 30% of the points in your FICO® scores, which places it a close second behind whether or not you have negative information on your credit reports. And as many people have learned the hard way, the minimum score requirements to not only qualify but also qualify at the best interest rates have become more difficult to satisfy.
This means higher FICO scores equals approvals where in the past a higher FICO score meant an approval with the best rates.
Friday, December 4, 2009
FICO Fool’s Gold
By Edward Jamison, Esq.
Oh man, those engineers at FICO must be having themselves one rip roaring laugh right about now. They pulled the fast one of the year on November 29th when they supposedly disclosed FICO score point values to Liz Weston from MSN. Ms. Weston, who is one of smarter consumer credit journalists, took the bait hook line and sinker and published this article soon thereafter.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/weston-5-ways-to-kill-your-credit-scores.aspx?page=1
Essentially what happened was FICO simulated the impact of a variety of credit behaviors on FICO scores of both 680 and 780. The score “damage” was summarized into the below chart. Weston’s article was titled “5 Ways to Kill Your Credit Score”, which to me means that the article was simply meant to illustrate that doing one of the following actions can hurt you…and that your should avoid them at all costs. The problem is the info is already being misinterpreted and abused.
Here’s where the fun really begins, what FICO did not disclose and what Ms. Weston might now know is that four of the five actions listed above will cause your credit file to be scored in a new scorecard. What this means…well, what this means is complicated. FICO scores measure your credit file’s potential risk by scoring it using a unique algorithm specifically designed for your file type, called a scorecard. That means if you have a bankruptcy then you’re scored in a bankruptcy scorecard. If your credit file only has one or two accounts then it’s scored in what’s referred to as a thin file scorecard, and so forth and so on.
Point being, all of our credit files are not scored the same way and not using the same FICO formula. Four of the five actions above are negative. And, when a clean file suddenly is hit with something negative it will go from essentially a “clean credit file” scorecard to a “derogatory file” scorecard. The result is a completely different measurement for EVERYTHING on your file. So adding a foreclosure or a settlement or a 30-day late payment or a bankruptcy to your credit file doesn’t “cost” it the points you see above. It causes everything on your file to have a new value so the score change can’t be attributed just to the negative item. The score change has to be attributed to the change in scorecards.
Next, not all 680s and 780s are created equally. Meaning, your 680 might have been caused by a completely different set of credit circumstances as my 680. Same goes for the 780. Case in point, John Ulzheimer, a credit expert who has forgotten more about credit scores than most people know, ran similar simulations on his own personal credit reports using the myFICO website tools. It just so happens that Mr. Ulzheimer’s FICO score for the simulations was also 780. This is perfect because I’m about to illustrate just how different FICO’s hypothetical 780 is from a real credit report with the same score of 780.
The score damage on the original 780 in FICO’s simulation of filing a bankruptcy was a negative hit of between 220 and 240 points. On Ulzheimer’s real credit file with a real FICO score of 780 the hit was between 195 and 255 points. Missing a payment on an account that was current, also known as the dreaded “30-day” late, caused FICO’s FICO score to drop between 90 and 110 points. On Ulzheimer’s 780 FICO score the same 30-day late payment caused his score to drop 40 to 75 points.
As you can see the point differences for the exact same action on the exact same FICO score (780) was anything but exactly the same. Ulzheimer even trumped Weston by re-interviewing FICO’s Public Affairs Director, Craig Watts. He was able to confirm from Watts that the examples in the FICO chart were “hypothetical” and “could vary significantly” from consumer to consumer. You can Ulzheimer’s his full article here.
http://www.credit.com/news/experts/2009-11-29/real-fico-score-damage-point-amounts-clarified.html
As interesting as the MSN article is and as hard as it is for me to say this, I believe writing this article was quasi-irresponsible. Not so much because of the content was wrong, because it wasn’t. As I said, Weston is right at the top of list of credit journalists who cover the industry. The problem as I see it is you could have disclaimed the charts and results with “this is just a hypothetical example” a dozen times and people are still going to focus on the point differences and believe them and think that they now know how many points things are worth, which will be an incorrect assumption in almost every case. This will lead to more consumer confusion on a topic that’s already confusing as hell.
My point is already being proven. Within two days of the publishing of Ms. Weston’s article two separate writers picked up and misrepresented the data. Instead of interpreting the information as a general approximation of what COULD happen to your score if you made various mistakes, the data is purposely being positioned as a new breakthrough into FICO’s black box. The titles of those two article are “FICO Reveals How Common Credit Mistakes Affect Scores” and “FICO Reveals the Impact of Their Credit Scores on Consumers”, the second title making absolutely no sense and neither being truly accurate.
Look, I recognize that these are simple “search engine content” pirates and they’re just jacking and using someone else’s content to benefit their own affiliate programs. Point being, they’re never going to get it right and they don’t care because they just want the keywords for their websites to attract search engine traffic for certain key credit terms. The problem is this stuff gets picked up and spread all over the world wide web and inevitably finds it’s way into credit related chat rooms, blogs, forums and even legitimate media and thus takes on an air of legitimacy.
It would have been great if Weston had thought about this before she published her story.
Oh man, those engineers at FICO must be having themselves one rip roaring laugh right about now. They pulled the fast one of the year on November 29th when they supposedly disclosed FICO score point values to Liz Weston from MSN. Ms. Weston, who is one of smarter consumer credit journalists, took the bait hook line and sinker and published this article soon thereafter.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/weston-5-ways-to-kill-your-credit-scores.aspx?page=1
Essentially what happened was FICO simulated the impact of a variety of credit behaviors on FICO scores of both 680 and 780. The score “damage” was summarized into the below chart. Weston’s article was titled “5 Ways to Kill Your Credit Score”, which to me means that the article was simply meant to illustrate that doing one of the following actions can hurt you…and that your should avoid them at all costs. The problem is the info is already being misinterpreted and abused.
Here’s where the fun really begins, what FICO did not disclose and what Ms. Weston might now know is that four of the five actions listed above will cause your credit file to be scored in a new scorecard. What this means…well, what this means is complicated. FICO scores measure your credit file’s potential risk by scoring it using a unique algorithm specifically designed for your file type, called a scorecard. That means if you have a bankruptcy then you’re scored in a bankruptcy scorecard. If your credit file only has one or two accounts then it’s scored in what’s referred to as a thin file scorecard, and so forth and so on.
Point being, all of our credit files are not scored the same way and not using the same FICO formula. Four of the five actions above are negative. And, when a clean file suddenly is hit with something negative it will go from essentially a “clean credit file” scorecard to a “derogatory file” scorecard. The result is a completely different measurement for EVERYTHING on your file. So adding a foreclosure or a settlement or a 30-day late payment or a bankruptcy to your credit file doesn’t “cost” it the points you see above. It causes everything on your file to have a new value so the score change can’t be attributed just to the negative item. The score change has to be attributed to the change in scorecards.
Next, not all 680s and 780s are created equally. Meaning, your 680 might have been caused by a completely different set of credit circumstances as my 680. Same goes for the 780. Case in point, John Ulzheimer, a credit expert who has forgotten more about credit scores than most people know, ran similar simulations on his own personal credit reports using the myFICO website tools. It just so happens that Mr. Ulzheimer’s FICO score for the simulations was also 780. This is perfect because I’m about to illustrate just how different FICO’s hypothetical 780 is from a real credit report with the same score of 780.
The score damage on the original 780 in FICO’s simulation of filing a bankruptcy was a negative hit of between 220 and 240 points. On Ulzheimer’s real credit file with a real FICO score of 780 the hit was between 195 and 255 points. Missing a payment on an account that was current, also known as the dreaded “30-day” late, caused FICO’s FICO score to drop between 90 and 110 points. On Ulzheimer’s 780 FICO score the same 30-day late payment caused his score to drop 40 to 75 points.
As you can see the point differences for the exact same action on the exact same FICO score (780) was anything but exactly the same. Ulzheimer even trumped Weston by re-interviewing FICO’s Public Affairs Director, Craig Watts. He was able to confirm from Watts that the examples in the FICO chart were “hypothetical” and “could vary significantly” from consumer to consumer. You can Ulzheimer’s his full article here.
http://www.credit.com/news/experts/2009-11-29/real-fico-score-damage-point-amounts-clarified.html
As interesting as the MSN article is and as hard as it is for me to say this, I believe writing this article was quasi-irresponsible. Not so much because of the content was wrong, because it wasn’t. As I said, Weston is right at the top of list of credit journalists who cover the industry. The problem as I see it is you could have disclaimed the charts and results with “this is just a hypothetical example” a dozen times and people are still going to focus on the point differences and believe them and think that they now know how many points things are worth, which will be an incorrect assumption in almost every case. This will lead to more consumer confusion on a topic that’s already confusing as hell.
My point is already being proven. Within two days of the publishing of Ms. Weston’s article two separate writers picked up and misrepresented the data. Instead of interpreting the information as a general approximation of what COULD happen to your score if you made various mistakes, the data is purposely being positioned as a new breakthrough into FICO’s black box. The titles of those two article are “FICO Reveals How Common Credit Mistakes Affect Scores” and “FICO Reveals the Impact of Their Credit Scores on Consumers”, the second title making absolutely no sense and neither being truly accurate.
Look, I recognize that these are simple “search engine content” pirates and they’re just jacking and using someone else’s content to benefit their own affiliate programs. Point being, they’re never going to get it right and they don’t care because they just want the keywords for their websites to attract search engine traffic for certain key credit terms. The problem is this stuff gets picked up and spread all over the world wide web and inevitably finds it’s way into credit related chat rooms, blogs, forums and even legitimate media and thus takes on an air of legitimacy.
It would have been great if Weston had thought about this before she published her story.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Solid Strategies to Avoid Credit Card Smackdown
By Edward Jamison, Esq.
We’re officially four months away from the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights going into effect. And, if certain Democrats have their way, we’re only thirty days away. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume that the CARD Act provisions will wait until February 2010 to become enforceable law.
During these last few days of the credit card world’s version of the Wild Wild West we should continue to see credit card issuers behaving badly, very badly in fact. The mega-credit card issuers have a shrinking window of opportunity to finish remolding their cardholder base to look more like what they will finally deem as being to their liking. This means consumers will continue to suffer the at the hands of their credit card companies, that is of course unless they employ one or more of the following strategies.
1. Don’t Not Use Your Card – Ok, the poor grammar was intentional and corny but I think I’ve made my point. Credit card issuers are in busy to make money and make a profit. They can’t do either unless you are using your credit card. And, the best news is that you do not have to carry a balance from one month to the next in order to drop a few dimes in your credit card issuers pockets. Each time you use your credit card the merchant (aka the place you used the card) has to pay the bank a fee. This fee is called interchange. It technically comes out of your pocket because many retailers will build the assumed fee into the price of the merchandise but it sure doesn’t feel that way when we buy stuff with our credit cards. So, knock the dust off your cards and use them for modest purchases. Don’t revolve a balance and don’t get into a position where your balances spiral out of control and you’ll be fine.
2. Shut Up! – In the past a viable strategy to get fees waived and interest rates lowered was to call your credit card issuer and complain or otherwise plead your case. That’s still a decent strategy but beware. Your credit card issuer might turn the tables and start asking YOU questions in order to determine whether or not they still want to do business with you. If you call them and THEY start asking questions about your job status and salary then end the convo and hang up or you might just end up with a closed credit card.
3. Open Another Card, NOW – One of the worst strategies I see people employing today is the 1-card strategy. This is a consumer who has swallowed the Dave Ramsey gospel hook, line and sinker. The problem is that it’s unrealistic and appealing only to the lowest common credit denominator. You should have MORE cards, not fewer cards. Clearly this is a credit score play as well since having more available and unused credit limits are always good for your credit scores. So, if you have one or two credit cards right now, think about opening at least one more. This gives you options in case one of your credit card issuers starts behaving badly towards you. Nothing is more empowering than saying “I’ll take my business elsewhere” and then actually doing it.
4. Don’t Hide Behind Great FICO Scores – FICO published a study earlier this year and the findings showed that the median FICO score for a consumer who has seem his or her credit limit reduced was 770. A 770 FICO score is fantastic in any lender’s book and especially in this credit environment where lenders are gravitating to stronger borrowers. What this means is that just because you have great FICOs it doesn’t fully shield you from adverse treatment from lenders.
5. Go Small and Go Local – I was interviewing John Ulzheimer, founder of http://www.creditexpertwitness.com/ and a nationally recognized credit expert and he made an interesting point. He said that we, as consumers and watchdogs, tend to focus on the largest 5-10 banks and tend to forget about the thousands of lenders who are NOT treating their customers poorly. Credit unions are a great example of these lenders. If you are sick of how you’re being treated by your Manhattan bank then perhaps you need a local credit union or local bank on your side.
6. Don’t Exit The System – The blogs are on fire with angry consumers who are claiming to have sworn off credit for the foreseeable future because of how they are being treated by their lenders. “From now on if I can’t pay cash for it I won’t buy it.” Eh, that plays well on the big screen but it’s not realistic. Carrying around cash to pay for things is a bad idea. And good luck using debit cards for things like business travel and European vacations. Stay in the system, please.
7. If All Else Fails, Litigate – If you’re finding yourself saddled with a garbage credit report because of errors and you can’t the credit bureaus or lenders to correct your files then think about filing a lawsuit. You certainly wouldn’t be alone. There will be over 8,500 credit related lawsuits filed this year. Collections agencies are the targets in most of them but certainly the credit bureaus and lenders are in the cross hairs a fair amount too. Just be sure to hire a lawyer who knows what he’s doing.
So there you have it, seven solid strategies to hopefully minimize your chances of being treated poorly by your creditors. And while there are certainly no guarantees that you’ll exit this credit environment without a few scars, you can certainly make yourself as immune as possible by doing a few easy and inexpensive things. Good luck!!
We’re officially four months away from the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights going into effect. And, if certain Democrats have their way, we’re only thirty days away. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume that the CARD Act provisions will wait until February 2010 to become enforceable law.
During these last few days of the credit card world’s version of the Wild Wild West we should continue to see credit card issuers behaving badly, very badly in fact. The mega-credit card issuers have a shrinking window of opportunity to finish remolding their cardholder base to look more like what they will finally deem as being to their liking. This means consumers will continue to suffer the at the hands of their credit card companies, that is of course unless they employ one or more of the following strategies.
1. Don’t Not Use Your Card – Ok, the poor grammar was intentional and corny but I think I’ve made my point. Credit card issuers are in busy to make money and make a profit. They can’t do either unless you are using your credit card. And, the best news is that you do not have to carry a balance from one month to the next in order to drop a few dimes in your credit card issuers pockets. Each time you use your credit card the merchant (aka the place you used the card) has to pay the bank a fee. This fee is called interchange. It technically comes out of your pocket because many retailers will build the assumed fee into the price of the merchandise but it sure doesn’t feel that way when we buy stuff with our credit cards. So, knock the dust off your cards and use them for modest purchases. Don’t revolve a balance and don’t get into a position where your balances spiral out of control and you’ll be fine.
2. Shut Up! – In the past a viable strategy to get fees waived and interest rates lowered was to call your credit card issuer and complain or otherwise plead your case. That’s still a decent strategy but beware. Your credit card issuer might turn the tables and start asking YOU questions in order to determine whether or not they still want to do business with you. If you call them and THEY start asking questions about your job status and salary then end the convo and hang up or you might just end up with a closed credit card.
3. Open Another Card, NOW – One of the worst strategies I see people employing today is the 1-card strategy. This is a consumer who has swallowed the Dave Ramsey gospel hook, line and sinker. The problem is that it’s unrealistic and appealing only to the lowest common credit denominator. You should have MORE cards, not fewer cards. Clearly this is a credit score play as well since having more available and unused credit limits are always good for your credit scores. So, if you have one or two credit cards right now, think about opening at least one more. This gives you options in case one of your credit card issuers starts behaving badly towards you. Nothing is more empowering than saying “I’ll take my business elsewhere” and then actually doing it.
4. Don’t Hide Behind Great FICO Scores – FICO published a study earlier this year and the findings showed that the median FICO score for a consumer who has seem his or her credit limit reduced was 770. A 770 FICO score is fantastic in any lender’s book and especially in this credit environment where lenders are gravitating to stronger borrowers. What this means is that just because you have great FICOs it doesn’t fully shield you from adverse treatment from lenders.
5. Go Small and Go Local – I was interviewing John Ulzheimer, founder of http://www.creditexpertwitness.com/ and a nationally recognized credit expert and he made an interesting point. He said that we, as consumers and watchdogs, tend to focus on the largest 5-10 banks and tend to forget about the thousands of lenders who are NOT treating their customers poorly. Credit unions are a great example of these lenders. If you are sick of how you’re being treated by your Manhattan bank then perhaps you need a local credit union or local bank on your side.
6. Don’t Exit The System – The blogs are on fire with angry consumers who are claiming to have sworn off credit for the foreseeable future because of how they are being treated by their lenders. “From now on if I can’t pay cash for it I won’t buy it.” Eh, that plays well on the big screen but it’s not realistic. Carrying around cash to pay for things is a bad idea. And good luck using debit cards for things like business travel and European vacations. Stay in the system, please.
7. If All Else Fails, Litigate – If you’re finding yourself saddled with a garbage credit report because of errors and you can’t the credit bureaus or lenders to correct your files then think about filing a lawsuit. You certainly wouldn’t be alone. There will be over 8,500 credit related lawsuits filed this year. Collections agencies are the targets in most of them but certainly the credit bureaus and lenders are in the cross hairs a fair amount too. Just be sure to hire a lawyer who knows what he’s doing.
So there you have it, seven solid strategies to hopefully minimize your chances of being treated poorly by your creditors. And while there are certainly no guarantees that you’ll exit this credit environment without a few scars, you can certainly make yourself as immune as possible by doing a few easy and inexpensive things. Good luck!!
Monday, September 28, 2009
How Consumers Can Win the Credit Game
By Edward Jamison, Esq.
It’s late 2009 and the consumer credit world is still in turmoil. You have a new credit law, The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which partially became law in August 2009 and will completely become law in either February of 2010 or December 1, 2009 if Democrats have their way. You have a new FICO® score, FICO 08, which is now live and commercially available at all three of the credit reporting agencies. This new FICO score promises to do a better job of predicting future credit risk. You have millions of credit card holders who have seen their credit limits reduced, accounts closed, interest rates increased and/or their minimum payment requirements increased.
In addition you have billions in lost home equity, which means no more safety net for those consumers who have excessive credit card debt. You have debt settlement companies aggressively marketing their services like vultures circling a dying carcass without fully disclosing the downside of possible lawsuits and severe credit damage to their customers who use their services. And finally, you have media and the undereducated that are spreading fallacies about the credit world, and are causing panic. All in all, it’s a tough environment to survive and thrive in. Here are what I believe are the most important things that we consumers should be focused on over the next 24 months;
Continue to Improve Your Credit Scores
Continue to make your payments on time regardless of what you read or hear –
Debt settlement companies would have you believe that the best way to serve you is to suggest that you stop making your payment to your credit card issuers. The theory is that a lender who isn’t getting paid might be more flexible for a consumer who isn’t making their payments. I guess it’s the “I’m lucky to get something” hypothesis. The problem is that many credit card issuers will gladly work with their debtors and work out settlements or payment plans directly, without the intervention of debt settlement companies.
This helps them to collect more than what they’d get from a 3rd party settlement company and it will also mean that you are paying them more of what you owe them, which is a good thing. It will also protect you from litigation should the credit card issuer grow tired of you avoiding them at a debt settlement company’s request.
Pay down your debt to no more than 10% -
The new FICO score, FICO 08, is more sensitive about your revolving utilization percentage, which is the relationship between your balances and limits on credit card accounts. This means those of you who are highly utilized will suffer more as lenders continue to convert to this newer credit score, and many have already made the switch.
If you can’t get your balances to less than 10% of your credit limits then get them as low as possible and your score will benefit. Why is this important? It’s simple. Lenders are being more critical about credit scores than in the past 36 months. A good score, say 700, two years ago would have gotten you approved at their best deal a lender had going. Today it will get you approved but not with the best terms. Shoot for 750 to ensure you of the best terms. And, be aware that mortgage lenders not only want 750 but they also want a larger down payment in many cases.
More Cards Are Better, Shoot for Five –
This is counter intuitive but we’re living in a bizarre credit world. Those of you who have less than five credit cards are in a bad position. A bad position because of a couple of reasons, which are;
You have fewer options if one of your credit card issuers changes your terms – Tens of millions of consumer have seen the terms of their credit card accounts changed adversely over the past 18 to 24 months. This means lower credit limits, higher rates, higher minimum payments and closed accounts in some cases. If you have only one or two cards then you leave yourself without options should one or more of your credit card issuers start misbehaving. And for those of you who think you’re immune from this because you have good FICO scores, think again. FICO released a study several months ago that showed that, at a 2 to 1 ratio, cardholders who saw their credit limits decreased had median FICO score of 770. Nobody is immune.
With more cards you give yourself the option to move your business elsewhere and not lose the access to the capital that a credit card provides.
Think About Litigation If You Know You’re Right –
Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) lawsuits are going to eclipse 8,500 this year, which will easily be a record. According to John Ulzheimer, founder of www.creditexpertwitness.com, and a professional expert witness, “many consumer are finding that they can’t get legitimate errors corrected on their credit reports. The choice they have is to live with it for seven years or take someone to court and force them to listen.”
Many collection agencies are finding it hard to avoid lawsuits despite a huge growth in outstanding delinquent receivables. Some are calling for a revamping if the FDCPA but any politician that chooses to reduce consumer protections at this time in history is asking to be voted out of office.
It’s late 2009 and the consumer credit world is still in turmoil. You have a new credit law, The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which partially became law in August 2009 and will completely become law in either February of 2010 or December 1, 2009 if Democrats have their way. You have a new FICO® score, FICO 08, which is now live and commercially available at all three of the credit reporting agencies. This new FICO score promises to do a better job of predicting future credit risk. You have millions of credit card holders who have seen their credit limits reduced, accounts closed, interest rates increased and/or their minimum payment requirements increased.
In addition you have billions in lost home equity, which means no more safety net for those consumers who have excessive credit card debt. You have debt settlement companies aggressively marketing their services like vultures circling a dying carcass without fully disclosing the downside of possible lawsuits and severe credit damage to their customers who use their services. And finally, you have media and the undereducated that are spreading fallacies about the credit world, and are causing panic. All in all, it’s a tough environment to survive and thrive in. Here are what I believe are the most important things that we consumers should be focused on over the next 24 months;
Continue to Improve Your Credit Scores
Continue to make your payments on time regardless of what you read or hear –
Debt settlement companies would have you believe that the best way to serve you is to suggest that you stop making your payment to your credit card issuers. The theory is that a lender who isn’t getting paid might be more flexible for a consumer who isn’t making their payments. I guess it’s the “I’m lucky to get something” hypothesis. The problem is that many credit card issuers will gladly work with their debtors and work out settlements or payment plans directly, without the intervention of debt settlement companies.
This helps them to collect more than what they’d get from a 3rd party settlement company and it will also mean that you are paying them more of what you owe them, which is a good thing. It will also protect you from litigation should the credit card issuer grow tired of you avoiding them at a debt settlement company’s request.
Pay down your debt to no more than 10% -
The new FICO score, FICO 08, is more sensitive about your revolving utilization percentage, which is the relationship between your balances and limits on credit card accounts. This means those of you who are highly utilized will suffer more as lenders continue to convert to this newer credit score, and many have already made the switch.
If you can’t get your balances to less than 10% of your credit limits then get them as low as possible and your score will benefit. Why is this important? It’s simple. Lenders are being more critical about credit scores than in the past 36 months. A good score, say 700, two years ago would have gotten you approved at their best deal a lender had going. Today it will get you approved but not with the best terms. Shoot for 750 to ensure you of the best terms. And, be aware that mortgage lenders not only want 750 but they also want a larger down payment in many cases.
More Cards Are Better, Shoot for Five –
This is counter intuitive but we’re living in a bizarre credit world. Those of you who have less than five credit cards are in a bad position. A bad position because of a couple of reasons, which are;
You have fewer options if one of your credit card issuers changes your terms – Tens of millions of consumer have seen the terms of their credit card accounts changed adversely over the past 18 to 24 months. This means lower credit limits, higher rates, higher minimum payments and closed accounts in some cases. If you have only one or two cards then you leave yourself without options should one or more of your credit card issuers start misbehaving. And for those of you who think you’re immune from this because you have good FICO scores, think again. FICO released a study several months ago that showed that, at a 2 to 1 ratio, cardholders who saw their credit limits decreased had median FICO score of 770. Nobody is immune.
With more cards you give yourself the option to move your business elsewhere and not lose the access to the capital that a credit card provides.
Think About Litigation If You Know You’re Right –
Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) lawsuits are going to eclipse 8,500 this year, which will easily be a record. According to John Ulzheimer, founder of www.creditexpertwitness.com, and a professional expert witness, “many consumer are finding that they can’t get legitimate errors corrected on their credit reports. The choice they have is to live with it for seven years or take someone to court and force them to listen.”
Many collection agencies are finding it hard to avoid lawsuits despite a huge growth in outstanding delinquent receivables. Some are calling for a revamping if the FDCPA but any politician that chooses to reduce consumer protections at this time in history is asking to be voted out of office.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Busy Couple of Weeks for FICO
By Edward Jamison, Esq.
Over the past few weeks the news surrounding FICO has been coming fast and furious. The Federal lawsuit filed by FICO against Experian, TransUnion and VantageScore Solutions was partially dismissed but left several counts that will now proceed to trial later this year. Additionally, the credit scoring company announced that FICO 08, their newest credit score, would be available at all three of the national credit reporting agencies starting in August 2009. This means that Experian has finally agreed to install and make available the credit score several months after TransUnion and Equifax had done so.
Regarding the FICO lawsuit:
On July 24th the Honorable Ann Montgomery ruled on a request to dismiss a lawsuit filed in Federal court by FICO (more formally referred to as Fair Isaac) against VantageScore Solutions, TransUnion and Experian. Judge Montgomery dismissed some of the counts and left others in place therefore leading the parties toward trial later this year.
The lawsuit, among other things, claims breach of contract and trademark infringement. The Order sheds a public light on a number of very interesting things that were not previously known, including email communication between executives of the credit reporting agencies. Some of the more interesting nuggets of gold, with emphasis added, from the Order are;
1. The proposed joint venture between the three credit reporting agencies was referred to as either “Operation Triad” or “Project Trident” and eventually lead to the creation of VantageScore Solutions and subsequently the VantageScore scoring model. VantageScore is a credit risk score but uses a different credit scoring range (501-990) as the FICO score (300-850). VantageScore also converts their numeric score to an alpha display using the academic A-F range, which seems comical considering VantageScore is not a lender and doesn’t underwrite loans. The assertion that they know how to grade a consumer’s as being an “A” versus a “B” is a responsibility solely for a lender, not a credit score developer.
It’s also important to note that while Equifax was originally named as a defendant they reached a settlement with FICO on or around June of 2008 and is no longer a party to the lawsuit. The fact that the bureaus named the project after a military weapon sheds light on their mindset at the time.
2. In February of 2005 Experian enlisted the assistance of a consulting firm, which at the time was called Mercer Oliver Wyman. Today this firm is referred to as Oliver Wyman and is a division of Marsh & McLennan. According to the Order this firm created a document for Experian that suggested “through the joint venture (VantageScore), the credit bureaus could build their own scoring model and transfer Fair Isaac’s revenue ENTIRELY to themselves.” The difficulty of replacing entrenched credit scoring systems seems to have been grossly underestimated. I wonder if Experian asked for a refund considering the consultant’s misread of the market.
3. The original VantageScore scoring model “relied on the algorithms in Experian’s own in-house, tri-bureau scoring model, which Experian made available to the team.” The bureaus announced VantageScore to the market in March of 2006. FICO files their lawsuit on October 11th of the same year. This seems to contradict VantageScore’s marketing literature, “The nation’s three consumer credit reporting companies – Equifax, Experian and TransUnion – worked together to develop a tri-bureau generic credit scoring system.”
4. Each of the credit bureaus pays $300,000 annually to secure royalty-free and global licenses for the use of the VantageScore model.
5. Prior to the introduction of VantageScore TransUnion’s royalty payments to FICO was $40,000,000. After the introduction of VantageScore the royalty payments were $44,000,000. No time frames were given so these figures could represent an annual amount or cover some other period of time but assuming the comparison is apples to apples it seems to suggest that FICO has not lost any market share to VantageScore. This means consumers applying for credit will likely have their loans underwritten by a lender using a FICO score.
6. With respect to the confusion in the consumer market of other scores with similar score ranges to that of the FICO score (300-850), “The evidence identified by Fair Isaac lends support to the inference that Defendants intentionally copied Fair Isaac’s 300-850 mark and that consumers confused Defendants credit scores with FICO credit scores as a result.” In English what this means is the credit bureaus intentionally chose score ranges that were similar to FICO’s 300-850 in order to confuse consumers who were shopping online for the credit scores. This has been a consistent criticism of both Experian and TransUnion for years. Equifax does not sell any credit score to consumers other than the legitimate FICO score so they’re not a target of the criticism. The simple question “why did you choose a score range similar to FICO’s” is one that they finally had to answer in court, although smart consumers already knew what they were up to.
7. The published FICO score ranges of 300 to 850 seems to not be the actual FICO score range. From the Order “Fair Isaac argues in response that the term 300-850 is not the "actual scoring range for any of [Fair Isaac's] classic FICO credit scores. The actual scoring range for the first FICO score developed for Trans Union is 397-871, for Experian is 368-839, and for Equifax is 407-829. Every version of these scores has a different range-none of which is 300-850."
Regarding FICO 08:
According to a press release issued by FICO on July 22nd “FICO 08 Credit Score Available at All Three National Credit Reporting Agencies” by the end of July. Experian had refused to adopt the model because of their ongoing litigation with Fair Isaac. And already “five of the seven largest U.S. banks and four of the five largest credit card issuers” have begun testing or using the new score.
What this means is consumers who have a large amount of credit card debt or are highly utilized will likely see lower FICO 08 scores. This is because of the added importance of credit card debt built within the model. It also means adding yourself onto the credit card of another person in an attempt to “piggyback” your way to a better score will be impossible sooner rather than later.
A benefit to consumers is FICO 08’s logic, which ignores very low dollar collections, commonly referred to as nuisance collections. Consumers who are seeing their scores lowered by collections with an original amount less than $100 will see immediate benefit with FICO 08. This is an incentive for lenders to more quickly adopt the new score because savvy consumers who have these small collections will know that a lender who uses FICO 08 will see them in a much better light. Nothing will incent a lender to adopt the newer model faster than prospects going to competing banks just to ensure a better credit score.
This is the 20 year anniversary of the introduction of the FICO score at a credit bureau. Consumers who conduct banking or insurance business at pretty much any bank, mortgage lender, or insurance company are subject to FICO’s evaluation.
Over the past few weeks the news surrounding FICO has been coming fast and furious. The Federal lawsuit filed by FICO against Experian, TransUnion and VantageScore Solutions was partially dismissed but left several counts that will now proceed to trial later this year. Additionally, the credit scoring company announced that FICO 08, their newest credit score, would be available at all three of the national credit reporting agencies starting in August 2009. This means that Experian has finally agreed to install and make available the credit score several months after TransUnion and Equifax had done so.
Regarding the FICO lawsuit:
On July 24th the Honorable Ann Montgomery ruled on a request to dismiss a lawsuit filed in Federal court by FICO (more formally referred to as Fair Isaac) against VantageScore Solutions, TransUnion and Experian. Judge Montgomery dismissed some of the counts and left others in place therefore leading the parties toward trial later this year.
The lawsuit, among other things, claims breach of contract and trademark infringement. The Order sheds a public light on a number of very interesting things that were not previously known, including email communication between executives of the credit reporting agencies. Some of the more interesting nuggets of gold, with emphasis added, from the Order are;
1. The proposed joint venture between the three credit reporting agencies was referred to as either “Operation Triad” or “Project Trident” and eventually lead to the creation of VantageScore Solutions and subsequently the VantageScore scoring model. VantageScore is a credit risk score but uses a different credit scoring range (501-990) as the FICO score (300-850). VantageScore also converts their numeric score to an alpha display using the academic A-F range, which seems comical considering VantageScore is not a lender and doesn’t underwrite loans. The assertion that they know how to grade a consumer’s as being an “A” versus a “B” is a responsibility solely for a lender, not a credit score developer.
It’s also important to note that while Equifax was originally named as a defendant they reached a settlement with FICO on or around June of 2008 and is no longer a party to the lawsuit. The fact that the bureaus named the project after a military weapon sheds light on their mindset at the time.
2. In February of 2005 Experian enlisted the assistance of a consulting firm, which at the time was called Mercer Oliver Wyman. Today this firm is referred to as Oliver Wyman and is a division of Marsh & McLennan. According to the Order this firm created a document for Experian that suggested “through the joint venture (VantageScore), the credit bureaus could build their own scoring model and transfer Fair Isaac’s revenue ENTIRELY to themselves.” The difficulty of replacing entrenched credit scoring systems seems to have been grossly underestimated. I wonder if Experian asked for a refund considering the consultant’s misread of the market.
3. The original VantageScore scoring model “relied on the algorithms in Experian’s own in-house, tri-bureau scoring model, which Experian made available to the team.” The bureaus announced VantageScore to the market in March of 2006. FICO files their lawsuit on October 11th of the same year. This seems to contradict VantageScore’s marketing literature, “The nation’s three consumer credit reporting companies – Equifax, Experian and TransUnion – worked together to develop a tri-bureau generic credit scoring system.”
4. Each of the credit bureaus pays $300,000 annually to secure royalty-free and global licenses for the use of the VantageScore model.
5. Prior to the introduction of VantageScore TransUnion’s royalty payments to FICO was $40,000,000. After the introduction of VantageScore the royalty payments were $44,000,000. No time frames were given so these figures could represent an annual amount or cover some other period of time but assuming the comparison is apples to apples it seems to suggest that FICO has not lost any market share to VantageScore. This means consumers applying for credit will likely have their loans underwritten by a lender using a FICO score.
6. With respect to the confusion in the consumer market of other scores with similar score ranges to that of the FICO score (300-850), “The evidence identified by Fair Isaac lends support to the inference that Defendants intentionally copied Fair Isaac’s 300-850 mark and that consumers confused Defendants credit scores with FICO credit scores as a result.” In English what this means is the credit bureaus intentionally chose score ranges that were similar to FICO’s 300-850 in order to confuse consumers who were shopping online for the credit scores. This has been a consistent criticism of both Experian and TransUnion for years. Equifax does not sell any credit score to consumers other than the legitimate FICO score so they’re not a target of the criticism. The simple question “why did you choose a score range similar to FICO’s” is one that they finally had to answer in court, although smart consumers already knew what they were up to.
7. The published FICO score ranges of 300 to 850 seems to not be the actual FICO score range. From the Order “Fair Isaac argues in response that the term 300-850 is not the "actual scoring range for any of [Fair Isaac's] classic FICO credit scores. The actual scoring range for the first FICO score developed for Trans Union is 397-871, for Experian is 368-839, and for Equifax is 407-829. Every version of these scores has a different range-none of which is 300-850."
Regarding FICO 08:
According to a press release issued by FICO on July 22nd “FICO 08 Credit Score Available at All Three National Credit Reporting Agencies” by the end of July. Experian had refused to adopt the model because of their ongoing litigation with Fair Isaac. And already “five of the seven largest U.S. banks and four of the five largest credit card issuers” have begun testing or using the new score.
What this means is consumers who have a large amount of credit card debt or are highly utilized will likely see lower FICO 08 scores. This is because of the added importance of credit card debt built within the model. It also means adding yourself onto the credit card of another person in an attempt to “piggyback” your way to a better score will be impossible sooner rather than later.
A benefit to consumers is FICO 08’s logic, which ignores very low dollar collections, commonly referred to as nuisance collections. Consumers who are seeing their scores lowered by collections with an original amount less than $100 will see immediate benefit with FICO 08. This is an incentive for lenders to more quickly adopt the new score because savvy consumers who have these small collections will know that a lender who uses FICO 08 will see them in a much better light. Nothing will incent a lender to adopt the newer model faster than prospects going to competing banks just to ensure a better credit score.
This is the 20 year anniversary of the introduction of the FICO score at a credit bureau. Consumers who conduct banking or insurance business at pretty much any bank, mortgage lender, or insurance company are subject to FICO’s evaluation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
