Skip Navigation
Microblog Memes @lemmy.world

The numbers will determine your fate

293 comments
  • There is a lot of misunderstanding about credit scores posted here.

    The purpose of credit scores is to answer only one question:

    How good are you at pay back a debt if someone were to loan you some money?

    Thats it. Everything on how the score is calculated is weights and measures to service that question.

    The reason that making payments on an active loan improves your score, is because it is real proof you are getting money from somewhere (the credit score doesn't care where) and you're choosing to spend that money on an agreed payment on the debt. Lets say I'm a lender and I'm considering giving you money, and I see that someone prior to me make a similar agreement, and you're honoring that agreement to pay, then it gives me a good reason to think you'll also pay on debts you have with me. The reason your score goes down when you pay off your last loan, is because I can't see you still have the money to pay on a new loan. It means you're a (slightly) higher risk because I'll have to take it on faith that where ever you got the money to pay off the last one, you'll also be able to get that money to pay off the one to me. There's no guarantee for that, so its a risk to me, a lender.

    Another thing I'm seeing missing in the discussion here is:

    "Doing X makes your credit score go down"

    Technically true, but many of those things that make it go down only do so for a short time. Maybe a month or two (using modern FICO score system).

    There can be arguments as to which inputs they use, and how much each of those inputs affects the score. So much so, rating agencies themselves even change their minds over time. They update what they think is important and downgrade what they think matters less. You've likely heard of a FICO score. Over time there have been SIXTEEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what makes a FICO score source. Some of the variation you see when you get your score from different places is those places using slightly newer or older versions of the scoring system.

    Unfortunately lots of organizations that have nothing to do with lending you money are choosing to use your credit score for their own systems. I've heard of insurance companies using FICO scores as inputs to how they calculate premiums, which they shouldn't do. Some employers are using these now to filter applicants. Those employers are perverting the credit score system (again, a system just for loaning money) as a measure of trustworthiness or fidelity. I wouldn't mind laws that prevent that as that isn't what credit scores are designed for, and doesn't answer that question.

  • There are numerous proprietary score algorithms out there. The newer ones seem to have fixed this bug by factoring history of closed accounts but many online “free credit report” services still use the old ones.

    Old algorithms would often penalize account closure due to sudden reductions in average credit age, available credit, or credit mix (any of which might apply to the OP, but especially if that car loan represented a significant portion of their credit history).

    Likewise, they would sometimes reward new debt if it significantly increased available credit or added a unique credit type to the mix. For example, a first mortgage could bump a credit score by 30 points or more, even though the individual is no more credit worthy than they were before.

    Regardless, I think a good thing to keep in mind is that banks tend to maintain their own internal scoring systems. So not only is there no such thing as “THE score,” but the scores people are referring to when they say that are mostly just one credit bureau’s estimate, based on their proprietary rubric, of how a lender MIGHT see a potential borrower’s likelihood of default.

    • The banks often use the score by such scoring companies, as those scoring companies have access to all sorts of contracts, bank accounts etc. you have. Wheras you bank only has information provided directly by you.

      The scoring companies can have tremendous impact on your life and often they use completely bullshit factors, like your postal code, where you are punished for living in a "poor" neighbourhood or rewards for living in a "good" niegbourhood.

      There is also credible reports of ethnical discrimination, e.g. if your name is not a "white" name.

      The scoring companies should be obliged to provide full disclourse for how they define a score and banks should be demanded to provide information, if they denied a credit based on such a credit score, with full liability of the scoring company, if their score was using discriminatory criteria.

      • The banks often use the score by such scoring companies, as those scoring companies have access to all sorts of contracts, bank accounts etc. you have. Wheras you bank only has information provided directly by you.

        At least in the US, banks see the full credit report you see, not just a number. Using any of the specific scoring models (FICO X, VantageScore X.0, etc) that are championed by scoring companies or the various US credit bureaus is entirely optional.

        The scoring companies can have tremendous impact on your life and often they use completely bullshit factors, like your postal code, where you are punished for living in a "poor" neighbourhood or rewards for living in a "good" niegbourhood.

        This is quite a claim. How easy would it be to detect and verify that credit bureaus are using borrowers’ associated addresses substantively in their nationally deployed scoring models? I’d wager a college student with an excel spreadsheet and a one-line mailer could do this in a single semester. Now consider the CFPB auditor, with direct records access. How long would that take?

        There is also credible reports of ethnical discrimination, e.g. if your name is not a "white" name.

        Again, I respectfully suggest thinking these conspiracies through. Credit reporting agencies are fancy bookies in the end, right? They live and die by the legitimacy of the service they offer. So if one of their scoring models has worse predictive accuracy because it’s evil, few banks will use it. Not even because it’s evil, just because it sucks.

        The scoring companies should be obliged to provide full disclourse for how they define a score…

        They are. In the US, it’s the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In Germany, I think it’s tied to the EU Credit Servicers Directive.

        I don’t enjoy defending credit bureaus of all things but conspiracy theories like the ones you’ve described distract from real systemic injustice and disrupt real collective action.

        Edit: changed localized phrasing and content so as to not accidentally come across as disrespectful or dismissive.

  • My credit score is just under 750 right now and I haven't had any significant bills for a while. It's all because I co-signed with a loan my dad got that has been counting toward it.

    I still can't open a line of credit above $350 tho. That score is so bullshit.

    • It's because you don't have any credit history (the co-signed loan doesn't fully count). Go get a credit card and pay off the full statement balance every month. That will build credit history and account age. DO NOT carry a balance, that incurs interest. Simply pay off the statement balance every month when the bill comes.

293 comments