Read this article first please. Then this post will make so much more sense.
Ok, I realize that credit scoring is a complex thing. Sure, it's not a recipe for spaghetti. It's confusing, irritating and even infuriating sometimes. But, come on Liz…get some of it right.
Today I read that article by Liz Peek at the New York Sun. I assume she knows something about the subject because surely anyone with the gumption to throw words out there on the world wide web would do some research beforehand so as to not look like a bonehead afterward. My expectations are clearly far too high.
Anyway, her article is loaded with errors, small and large, important and irrelevant. Here we go…
First off Fair Isaac removed the comma (,) between Fair and Isaac like 5 years ago. Small and irrelevant I know, but really irritating for someone who takes this stuff as serious as me. That's just sloppy on her part…and it's a sign of things to come.
Next she tells her readers that "your credit score…may determine whether or not you get that promotion you've been hoping for." Someone please tell her that scores are not delivered to or used by employers. Only credit data is used for employment purposes. That would be a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act because any time a score is delivered, the recipient must make a firm offer of credit or insurance. Large and important Liz.
Another biggie…"Typically, the three companies provide credit histories to FICO, who then issues a score." No Liz, that's not what happens. With that one you just let everyone know that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
FICO never takes possession of any credit reports from any credit bureau. FICO designs and then builds the FICO scoring software WHICH IS THEN INSTALLED at each of the three credit bureaus on their own mainframes. The credit bureaus are the ones scoring their own credit reports…with FICO's models. Come on Liz!! I know you're smarter than that. You spelled almost every word right in your article.
She also asserts in her e-babble that FICO somehow arbitrarily scores your three credit reports differently on purpose. Liz!! Oh Liz!!! Since you didn't bother to do a shred of research on the topic I'll give you an ignorance pass on this one. The reason you have three different FICO scores is because you have three DIFFERENT credit reports. Different ingredients equal a different tasting meal.
Wow, you got the next one right. That's right, age is a factor that CAN be included in your score. But, here's the real test…can you tell us WHY it can be added? And then for extra credit please tell us WHY it isn't added. Then I'll be impressed. You can't turn in your math homework without showing all of your work Liz. Makes you look like you cheated.
The rest of her article is an homage to the new VantageScore, which I posted about some time ago. She commits a Cardinal Sin by interviewing the guy who is heading the company that markets and sells the VantageScore. I'm just curious how he's getting paid since the score isn't being purchased by anyone larger than Billy Bob's Used Cars. I know this for a fact because the sales reps from the credit bureaus have told me since VantageScore was released that they can't sell it because nobody wants it.
The guy's name is Barrett Burns, which may be incorrect since I got it from her article. I'm sure he's a nice and very smart guy but right out of the gate it's not smart to tell everyone reading that your new world beater of a score is going to be "cheaper to lenders." Shouldn't you sell the value of the score…and not try and get market share by giving it away? Sorry, I'm getting side tracked. Back to my good friend Liz.
This is pretty funny. Someone is having a hard time with simple math. She says that VantageScore "has a wider range, from 501 to 990." Ok, so that's a range of 489 points, right? 990 minus 501. FICO has a range from 300-850, as Liz correctly points out in the article. That's a range of 550 points. 850 minus 300. See Liz, that's what I mean when I say you need to show your math. So, tell me again please, which score has a "wider range?"
"Today, the new company is working to convince numerous regulatory bodies and lenders that their scores work and are accurate." And, they're not too interested is what I'm hearing. Liz, you need to ask Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the rating agencies what they think about VantageScore. They're all who matters.
"The FICO scoring method was developed in the late 1990s, and since then a great deal has changed in the credit markets." I think I just blew a fuse. That might be the dumbest thing I've read today. So, what was FICO doing in the 1950's when Bill Fair and Earl Isaac started the company? According to Liz they were waiting 49 years to develop the FICO scoring method.
ACTUALLY, the FICO scoring method has been around since the mid 80s, even earlier if you want to include the technology of credit analytics. Liz's comments may lead some people to believe that FICO just whipped out a credit score in 1999 and have been collecting their royalty checks ever since.
FICO redevelops their credit scores every few years Liz. All you had to do was talk to them and you could have saved face my friend. They have a PR guy, Liz. He's real nice.
Then she wraps it up with a delicious "who loves a monopoly anyway" insinuating that VantageScore is going to somehow become an on par player in the credit scoring world. I'm sure Liz will let you know the minute that happens.
(John can be chastised, complimented or insulted in the comments section below or at AskJohn@credit.com.)