Fico Scoring is Crazy!

Here is my example of why Fico scoring is crazy. When I decided to clean up my credit, I started by deciding to be responsible. I got rid of all credit cards and now use a "check card". I paid everything that I owed and negotiated every bad mark (there were 50 spread amoung the three reports) off of the reports. It took 8 months and I haven't missed any payments on anything during this period.

My scores averaged about 580 when I started and 625 when I finished. I was happy with the progress, but the scores always gave a reason of "not enough revolving account activity" or something similar. OK, I decided to play the game and got a new unsecured credit card. So now I have one. I set it up for a $500 limit. You know what my scores did? They ALL when up over 700.

So here is the question. Does it make sense to anyone NOT on drugs that the scores would go up this much by adding so little credit? Clearing up/removing 50 negatives improved my score by 45 points and opening a credit card with a $500 limit increased them another 80 points?

That is just silly.

Originally posted by JC13
Here is my example of why Fico scoring is crazy. When I decided to clean up my credit, I started by deciding to be responsible. I got rid of all credit cards and now use a "check card". I paid everything that I owed and negotiated every bad mark (there were 50 spread amoung the three reports) off of the reports. It took 8 months and I haven't missed any payments on anything during this period.

My scores averaged about 580 when I started and 625 when I finished. I was happy with the progress, but the scores always gave a reason of "not enough revolving account activity" or something similar. OK, I decided to play the game and got a new unsecured credit card. So now I have one. I set it up for a $500 limit. You know what my scores did? They ALL when up over 700.

So here is the question. Does it make sense to anyone NOT on drugs that the scores would go up this much by adding so little credit? Clearing up/removing 50 negatives improved my score by 45 points and opening a credit card with a $500 limit increased them another 80 points?

That is just silly. What I`ve learned from your story is that you can clean up your credit in a short period of time. i was reading on the net a conversation between a guy from Fair Issac and another man, he also recorded there meeting and posted it word for word. The guy at Fair Issac said that`s just what we don`t won`t, people looking for a quick way to fix their credit, because the score is design to look at you as a credit risk over a long period of time.

Between that statment and the way the CRA`s operate, it shows that the scoring system is design to punish and they don`t want you "fixing" anything, they would rather you be judged for 7 years and pay rediculious amounts of money you made for a mistake you made when you were 21 yrs old?

I personally don`t get the scoring system, but you are just what they are hoping people don`t become, really educated about your credit. Congrat`s on your new score, i did the same thing you did. I negociated most of the really bad things off of my reports, got a checkcard, with the Visa logo(made me feel like I had good credit)lol. Then I got a Capitol one gold card and a Platinum Capital One card paid never late for a year, went from a TU score of 514 to a MYFico score in the high 600`s in 12 months.

One of my Capital one credit cards I closed,I kept that Platinum card open$500.00 credit limit.LOL but I $444.00 balance when I ordered my report did a score simulation on paying down my Capital one just $100.00 dollars and my Fico score would go from between 690 to 720!!!!....You know I paid that Balance down to Zero real quick. I also had a Sears and Household bank, closed them both 6 months before getting my reports. I don`t know if it hurt or not, but i do know my score improved so much that I applied for a Bank of America Visa and got the sucker! My first prime Credit Card, I wonder If that Card helped my score also?

I now get the"From the time of your last Revolving account is two short".?? I had just closed my sears card, which I had opened for 13 years!!! just five months before pulling my score. I think the score no longer sees my Sears card, but now sees the BOA card.

So for people who think closed revolving accounts count, they don`t if you close them. The funny thing is they will use closed accounts against you if you open and close too many cc`s.LOL Aprime example of the score being designed to punish. We won`t count that 13 year paid as agreed card you closed, but we will lower your score by counting credit cards that you had for six months then closed in an attemp to raise your score by adding more good TL that bad. See they only use closed accounts to punish you, they aren`t counting my good card closed at the end of 2002.

All I care about is getting bad junk off my report, even if you had a spotless report, you then be punished for having young credit history, spending too much on credit cards, having too many credit cards, being between 30 and 40 yrs old????. That`s discrimination!!! How can you say a high number of people in this age range have high debt and should LOSE POINTS for being in the age range........when each and everyone has there own score. A 36 year old guy should have a lower score than a 55 year old both with a perfect history?

I even read in a Fair Issac booklet on the net, where they have a thing called High Minority Areas aka HMA, where they compare Blacks and Hispanics to Whites by the amount of money they make and the areas they live in. It clearly states that this data is is taken into account. I bet more than we know! No wonder Fannie Mae got rid of just using the scores and even a rep said the scores discriminated. A rep from Fair Issac said that Race in not used in the scoring, but sure have it seperated in the booklet I read, which would lead me to beleive race does play a role in scoring.

The "only" way Fair Isaac discriminates is due to the fact that many cash payers are minorities and in general minorities have less access to credit, less wealth in the family (for financial assistance), little access to GOOD information about credit, etc.

"I now get the"From the time of your last Revolving account is two short".?? I had just closed my sears card, which I had opened for 13 years!!! just five months before pulling my score. I think the score no longer sees my Sears card, but now sees the BOA card."

Closing that Sears account really was a BAD move! But, you already figured that out.

Fair Isaac credit scoring - Why you should NOT close accounts (balance/limit ratio) (http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1336)

And Fair Isaac includes 6 year old CHARGED OFF accounts in the B/L ratio (http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/803/1012.html)

And don't miss Letter from FICO - I'm so excited! (http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1725)

i've posted before about how {UN} fair isaac has incorporated jim crow into their scoring models-- not based upon the race or ethnicity of an individual applicant, but demographically, by zip codes, designating certain areas of larger minority population as "riskier," and favoring the extremely wealthy, such as beverly hills, ca. or greenwich, ct. my properties have been in a top 5% area, so i doubt my scores were ever affected this way, but you can be sure if you live in a predominantly black or hispanic zone, you'll lose a point or two, and as FICO scores now control many aspects of our lives, that one or two points can and does make or break a job, mortgage, car loan, insurance, or utility service. in my world of real estate, this is called redlining, and is illegal. in real life, it's called racism by proxy.

{UN}fair isaac's peter mcCorkhole justified this before the FTC in 1999, and the company never had to answer for it. let us savor the aroma of warm, freshly laid, washington lobbied bovine feces wafting across the nation and into our lives every time we make a mortgage payment or apply for a low-interest credit card........
read for yourself here:--

www.aaacredit.com/pmtest72299.htm

FICO scoring itself is a novel concept-- those who bought into it as the ultimate judge, jury, and executioner of every consumer's credit, employment, and insruance worthiness are the ones who are crazy, getting filthy rich by jamming it down our throats.

FICO makes for interesting table talk and good subject matter for economics classes-- in practise, it is nothing more than a big pile of buffalo chips, if you catch my drift........... vermont perfume..:)*

"fair" isaac is fair, and work sets you free, right?:--

www.rudyfoto.com/hol/arbeit.html

Doug, they're NOT using the zip codes to score. What they did is ANALYZE their scores by zip codes, and they found that poor people and minorities have lower scores on average.

... but that's not how i see it. either way, your observation that FICO is penalizing lower income borrowers or those who tend to do things more by the "old school" of thought, back when a year or two of hard work bought your home free and clear, and having mortgage was a mark of shame, is substantiated. minorities and immigrants may tend to adhere to these ideals more so than do those of us brought up in this great land of borrowing. the gold standard went out in 1933, the silver standard followed in 1965, so when you take a piece of paper currency out of your pocket, what do you see? once upon a time, that paper was backed by precious metal-- go to the bank and you'd get coinage minted in gold or silver; today, it's nothing but a governmental promissory note-- possession indicates that the federal reserve owes the holder a unit of monetary measure [dollars.] printing and issuing these notes to the public represents borrowing from the public-- the note itself has no intrinsic value, as does a silver dollar or a $20 gold piece. going back to the silver standard would entail a one dollar coin about the size of a quarter, this riding the edge of today's silver market. back in 1980 when the hunt brothers tried to corner this market, a $5 coin would be the size of a dime. now let's consider the gold standard. at today's prices, a coin of $100 face value would be larger than a quarter but smaller than a half dollar. remember 1980?? your $100 coin then would be about the size of a dime.

the standards of backing have been abolished so that the federal government could liquidate precious metals, in favor of monetary policies based entirely upon borrowing. if you want gold today, you'll pay 20 times face value, and about 3.5 times for silver in promissory paper. phase-out of federal collatoralization began in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market collapse, became critical during fiscal year 1932-1933, and casualty of the US depression. the gold standard had to go because equity bled out of securities was no longer there; confidence in future economic progress was lost, and values placed upon optimism dissolved as pessimism became the rule, not the exception. congress made ownership of gold legal tender illegal, and compensated holders of gold money with federal reserve promissory notes, or with silver. bonds were also offered at comparatively generous rates of interest to those willing to turn in their gold; 8% yield was unheard of at the time, but uncle sam wanted the gold off the street and into the hands of the federal reserve.

the stock market lost more than 90% if its value between 1928 and 1933. many investors were riding a bull market, and buying extensively on margin. as the stock market imploded, most were unable or unwilling to cover their compromised positions. sitting no equity, or worse, an upside-down margin or option, many just said sayonara and walked away.
had emergency measures to step out of gold not been adopted by congress during the 1932-33 sessions, their is no doubt about it-- the federal government would have become insolvent. issues of bonds, and revoking the legal tender of gold coin, was all that could be done. europe has already been on skid row for a decade and even longer for willhelm kaiser, defeated in a war everyody just so happened to blunder into, humiliated on the world stage at versailles, and wedged into an economic corner of poverty and despair-- such is the wreckage from which the third reich of hitler was born. and so all fit hit the shans on wall street oct. 29, 1929.

PERCEPTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACT!!

i see {UN} fair issac considering certain zip codes risker than others. maybe i sould try it out with one address sitting on top of harvard and MIT.
more to follow--:)*

Originally posted by dougpratt
... but that's not how i see it. either way, your observation that FICO is penalizing lower income borrowers or those who tend to do things more by the "old school" of thought, back when a year or two of hard work bought your home free and clear, and having mortgage was a mark of shame, is substantiated. minorities and immigrants may tend to adhere to these ideals more so than do those of us brought up in this great land of borrowing. the gold standard went out in 1933, the silver standard followed in 1965, so when you take a piece of paper currency out of your pocket, what do you see? once upon a time, that paper was backed by precious metal-- go to the bank and you'd get coinage minted in gold or silver; today, it's nothing but a governmental promissory note-- possession indicates that the federal reserve owes the holder a unit of monetary measure [dollars.] printing and issuing these notes to the public represents borrowing from the public-- the note itself has no intrinsic value, as does a silver dollar or a $20 gold piece. going back to the silver standard would entail a one dollar coin about the size of a quarter, this riding the edge of today's silver market. back in 1980 when the hunt brothers tried to corner this market, a $5 coin would be the size of a dime. now let's consider the gold standard. at today's prices, a coin of $100 face value would be larger than a quarter but smaller than a half dollar. remember 1980?? your $100 coin then would be about the size of a dime.

the standards of backing have been abolished so that the federal government could liquidate precious metals, in favor of monetary policies based entirely upon borrowing. if you want gold today, you'll pay 20 times face value, and about 3.5 times for silver in promissory paper. phase-out of federal collatoralization began in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market collapse, became critical during fiscal year 1932-1933, and casualty of the US depression. the gold standard had to go because equity bled out of securities was no longer there; confidence in future economic progress was lost, and values placed upon optimism dissolved as pessimism became the rule, not the exception. congress made ownership of gold legal tender illegal, and compensated holders of gold money with federal reserve promissory notes, or with silver. bonds were also offered at comparatively generous rates of interest to those willing to turn in their gold; 8% yield was unheard of at the time, but uncle sam wanted the gold off the street and into the hands of the federal reserve.

the stock market lost more than 90% if its value between 1928 and 1933. many investors were riding a bull market, and buying extensively on margin. as the stock market imploded, most were unable or unwilling to cover their compromised positions. sitting no equity, or worse, an upside-down margin or option, many just said sayonara and walked away.
had emergency measures to step out of gold not been adopted by congress during the 1932-33 sessions, their is no doubt about it-- the federal government would have become insolvent. issues of bonds, and revoking the legal tender of gold coin, was all that could be done. europe has already been on skid row for a decade and even longer for willhelm kaiser, defeated in a war everyody just so happened to blunder into, humiliated on the world stage at versailles, and wedged into an economic corner of poverty and despair-- such is the wreckage from which the third reich of hitler was born. and so all fit hit the shans on wall street oct. 29, 1929.

PERCEPTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACT!!

i see {UN} fair issac considering certain zip codes risker than others. maybe i sould try it out with one address sitting on top of harvard and MIT.
more to follow--:)* I agree, Issac discriminates against Those in HMA`s, which is pathetic! It`s there to create the Illusion that whites who live in high income areas are some how better at paying back the debt?

Not true! Why do you think BK chapter 7 and chapter 12 are filed on a daily basis? Does making lots of money and being able to pay your bills mean that your going to pay them on time? No!

That whole thing where Issac claims having major bank cards with high balances as opposed to 500.00 limit Capital One cards is bull that cathers to specific people in certain areas that make certain amounts of money. Why because if you do have a low income, do you think BOA is going to give a 30,000 line of credit? I don`t think so. So now BOA wouldn`t give you that card because you don`t make enough on top of that Fico reduces points for living you live and CRA`s make it tough for you fix incorrect data in files by changing dates, re-aging accounts and fke verifying data, you`ve got one solid system designed to keep people in HMA`s down.

Fico does it part to contribute to the suppression on blacks and hispanics.

"Fico does it part to contribute to the suppression on blacks and hispanics."

That's certainly true, but it's very difficult for anyone to understand who is not familiar with how it works. Obviously the balance/limit ratio is a huge part of it.

But I'm really sure that a zipcode has nothing to do with it. It would be so easy to prove that too. There's never been a post: "I moved and my score went up/down."

Because the addresses on the reports change SO often (every time a creditor with an old address reports) it would be one of the first things people would notice.

.....? scores fluctuate day by day, so moving cannot be considered as a consistent reason why yours or mine go up or down at any given time. this would be like moving 20 miles away on a warm, sunny day, having it snow an inch the next day, and then take before and after photos and tell everybody you moved from los angeles to anchorage alaska. we're also not talking a great many points-- just one is all it takes to blow a mortgage, or constitute racism. until the veil is pulled away, or this method of evaluation as used as the one absolute determinant of worthiness finds its proper place in the ashcan of human debauchery and greed [along with applied marxism and the third reich,] the actual truth will remain unknown. just visiting {UN} fair isaac's web site is like a walking tour through auschwitz in mid-february, with light snow falling out of the clear gray sky... nothing can be proven, because the way these scores are generated cannot be questioned. some efforts have been made to reverse-engineer the models, and this system is already obsolete, as many borrowers are altering their behavior and financial habits not to present a better profile to a prospective lender [nobody looks at credit reports anymore,] but to simply raise one's FICO scores. this introduces artificiality into the model, rendering it alittle more useless than it already is in doing what it claims to be able to do:-- predict the future.

remember, NOBODY is allowed to understand how FICO scoring works-- i base what i say upon years of research, but could still be wrong. what seems to make sense doesn't, and versey-vicey. so long as they can keep on deceiving and price-gouging from behind a facade of legitimacy upheld by the federal government, this buffalo-chippery charade will continue.

if i recall my modern history correctly, it seems that mistakes such as this have been made before, in counties like russia, germany, and china to the tune of 300,000,000 murders in the last century alone. it also seems that few lessons have been learned, and so it goes. today it's property rights; who's to say what other rights will silently vanish tomorrow??...

few people even know that FICO exists, much less what it does. as it started affecting my livelihood 5 or 6 years ago, i thought it was a factual representation of my own credit performance, not a computer-generated statistical placement along a bell curve. how i handle my money shouldn't affect others and more versey-vicey.

getting late, time for bed-- more to come-- goodnight--