A lot of people think social credit scores are something society can’t function without, but they only started in 1989.
I certainly have problems with the way current financial institutions operate, but prior to the credit score there wasn’t a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk. It was left to a good ol’ boy process rife with racism, classism, and sexism. Sadly, we’re better off with what we have now, as flawed as it is.
There still isn’t a standardized and scientific way to assess credit risk. There are three major companies, several minor ones, and all of them offer multiple products.
IT’S ALL A FUCKING SCAM. We just blindly accept random institutions compiling all of our data and telling a bank whether or not we should be given a loan regardless of our ability to pay it back. It has little to do with income anymore, which should be the only allowable metric. Don’t want the risk? Get the fuck out of the mortgage business.
It was so much better before! When being a woman, or god forbid, being black, counted as serious criteria. Oh, and you best be friends with the banker. (Read the part, again, about being a white man, who was well accepted in the community.)
It’s not a scam, it’s a step forward. Time to take the next step.
which should be the only allowable metric.
Why? Income is a terrible metric. Regardless of how much money I’ve made, I’ve always spent within my means. I’ve never carried debt, but always has my cc to build the credit score.
The idea that some bozo who spends more than he earns has a better credit score than me just because he makes more money makes absolutely zero sense to me.
What about those that have sufficient income, but don’t pay their bills and have defaulted on previous loans?
If it was a publicly available algorithim, then Id believe you. But it ain’t, so I’m suspicious.
there wasn’t a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk.
Neither is it now. You forgot the ‘hidden from public’ part.
Why would you be better off? In the rest of the world you just have to provide proof of income and proof of savings and debt and banks can calculate how much they are willing to loan you for the purchase of a house. Seems to work fine, and I don’t have to have pay interest on meaningless loans just to prove that I can.
The problem is that just having the income and savings doesn’t necessarily guarantee that you’ll be as good about paying back a loan as someone of your same income and savings.
That’s supposed to be where the credit score helps, but the current system is so shady that it basically just reads as the ol’ boys club system but asking pretty please to pretend there’s a formula and method being used.
If you don’t take credit facilities but pay for your expenses in cash, you are considered a risk. Credit scoring based on credit card purchases is akin to being required to be spied on every step of the way just so you can access what you practically can without the credit in the first place. I don’t have a problem with people who are fine with that kind of behavior. But there should be a way of fair assessment even if you pay in cash.
At one time you walked into a bank, showed how much money you made, and got a home loan.
But that allowed too many Black people to buy homes, so credit scores were invented as a way to discriminate against people using a black box with no real published metric.
Yay for redlining under a different name!
It’s funny how the other person who replied to me said credit scores are actually the solution to racism. I think you’re the one who’s right it’s just funny. I’d like to take this opportunity to say it’s retarded that you can pay rent for years but not be approved for a mortgage with equal or lesser payments.
Nobody said credit scores were the solution. They were merely a step forward.
Young liberals: “It’s not good enough or fast enough! NOW!!!”
I’ll take what I can get, even if it takes some time.
You’re showing way too much faith in the institutions that invented the red lining in the first place to imply that the ol’ boys club system wasn’t waaaaay more rife with systemic racism.
The post war recovery laws were literally lobbied to specifically exclude black folks, but sure, home buying was easier for them then than it was post credit scores.
My dude, you’re missing about thirty years of history.
Redlining was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act in the late 60’s. It may have still existed in some fucked up form but it was no longer the standard by which lending was done. There’s a reason the rate of home ownership among Black people has steadily risen ever since, and yet it still isn’t close to any other group of people.
The whole system is fucked and it’s largely set up to fuck Black people because some mayo motherfuckers still want to own humans.
Nobody fucking cares how many black people buy houses. They only care about making the most profit.
tell me you’re ignoring how the adult personal financial world works in the west since 1989, without you, know telling me
What I hate the most is how your score goes down for paying off a loan early. Getting penalized for actually being financially responsible is infuriating. I paid off my car less than 2 years into a 5 year loan and my score went down a couple dozen points. Just because they couldn’t get more money from interest.
Interestingly our poster here has put the reason, I hadn’t thought about it that way, but how valuable you are to creditors is what the score is. Paying off early losses then some money, so score goes down. Hilarious. What an amazing system! ☹️
The system isn’t for seeing how responsible you are, it’s for seeing how reliable you are.
They seem like similar ideas but they are quite different.
That’s not why it went down. It probably went down because they had less credit extended to them after paying off the loan. How much credit you’re using affects your score.
They don’t care that u paid it off early. They care that your loan to income ratio just took a hit.
That doesn’t really make sense either. Why would a high amount of debt relative to income be a good thing? How does it indicate a person is more likely or capable of paying off a loan? If anything it means the opposite.
Oh goody. Just thought of another amazing use for ai! You could use it to figure out the maximum length and interest a single borrower would be expected to pay and set the terms on that! Wunderbar!
You know there are people in bank and credit institutions that have been doing this for centuries? Probably millennia… EU explicitly requires that some of this is done by what you call AI (i.e. mathematical models) because they are fairer than humans and safer for customers and society
Check basel III for an intro on the topic
We don’t need more discrimination in loan approval. A few years ago, Amazon built an AI that would look at resumes and rate how likely the candidate would be hired. The AI trained itself to recognize female sounding resumes (went to women’s only college, is involved in women’s organizations, does not use manly enough language) and flag those as undesirables.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G
Damn that’s really dystopian. It’s a credit score that directly measures how profitable you are to others as a human.
The specific rule you point out is stupid but easy to hack. Your score didn’t go down because they lost the interest you’d have paid. When you pay off a secured debt, the loaned amount is deducted from your total credit potential, which increases your utilized credit percentage. The hack is to open a line of credit against the secured asset before it’s paid off or another line of unsecured credit. Your credit utilization will drop, thus increasing your score.
My score is over 800 and has been for over a decade. I have like 12 credit cards but only use 2 and pay them off every month… Costco for the store and gas and a high cash back card for everything else. The others I keep open with 1 small purchase each year. Every store wants you to have one, so they’re easy to get. I have added and paid off multiple small to medium (10-60k) secured loans over the years and my score only fluctuates a little for a few weeks then goes back because my total credit with the dozen credit cards is so large.
I like video games, and the challenges they provide.
The game you’re playing is stupid, and no one should have to install that shit.
Good on you got doing it I guess, but it continues to persist, which is problematic.
It’s not really a game, more of an exploit.
But most people won’t need to do that any way, it’s overkill for like 99% of people.
If you have a credit card that you use and pay off regularly, a couple of paid off car loans or something like that and no overdue bills on your history, you’ll be absolutely fine.
It’s not a game u fucking moron it is a measure of responsibility.
Just admit you’re irresponsible and can’t hack the most simple math required to determine risk.
Fucking assholes blaming the ruler cuz they can’t measure. Lmfao.
Where would one look to find a high cash back card? I’ve been wanting to improve my score by switching to using a credit card for primary shopping that I pay off, but I can’t seem to find any good offers/deals/contracts/whatever term you’d use for a credit card. Probably my score though.
For simple cashback without yearly fees, 2% on everything or 5% on some things is about as good as it gets. I do everything on chase for simplicity and I’ve been reasonably happy with them. Twice now they have detected someone trying to use my credit card number (not sure how they got it), stopped it, and alerted me instantly. I mostly use the freedom unlimited card which was one of the better cards when I got it a few years ago.
I see where you’re coming from.
Credit scores aren’t about how responsible you are, they’re about how well you can stick to an agreement.
That’s not why it went down…lol.
Tell me u don’t understand how credit works…
usually I love to shit on muricans, But Germany has something similar. A private company called “Schufa”. This private company secretly calculates your credit score (no one knows realy how they calculate it) which determines if you get an apartment (for rent) or not. Living in the wrong street already kills your credit score here.
If the Schufa doesnt have information about you, it counts as negative.
As someone, who loves dunking on the Schufa, as any good German should. The Schufa-Score isn’t nearly as insane as some American credit score systems. Having an registered checkingsaccount & no outstanding bills or debt payments is enough data to have a high score.
You don’t need to repay debt to show, that you are able to.
Credit scores are the West’s social credit system.
If we value our freedom from a controlling, oppressive system, then we should penalize the creation, selling, buying and usage of credit score data. And we should keep on top of it to include any emerging attempts to re-establish an equivalent system.
TIL there are streets in Germany one can be homeless in, and it doesn’t affect your credit score.
(I’m joking about your usage of “in” as opposed to “on”, immediately following talking about not getting a place to live)
Huh?
I was saying that renting an apartment in the wrong street is a factor for a bad credit score here in Germany.
Edit: you can’t move into another apartment with a bad creditscore
So instead of being racist to just Americans, you’re being racist to both Americans and Germans?
For 25 years I’ve only carried a debt on my credit card one time, and that was for a few months under special circumstances. I have a top credit score.
It’s a stupid game, but it’s easy to play.
Why do Americans think you need to carry a debt to build credit? That is the opposite.
I put EVERYTHING on credit card, and pay everything off on time. Never missed a payment. My credit score was the highest it can be by the time I turned 21. I’ve never paid a penny in fees or interest.
Holy hell they sure do. A lot of Americans don’t even understand you don’t immediately start accruing interest. You clearly have not witnessed the absolute insanity of Americans saying that they use a debit card because they “don’t want to pay interest” or they “only spend money they have”.
Also the comment you’re replying to was likely in agreement with the premise established by the person they were replying to.
I arrived to the US less than 5 years ago and I have top credit score. I never carry a balance, open credit cards that offer a lot of credit, benefits and bonus to increase my available credit (I have about 6 or 7 cards at the moment) and just wait. In less than a year I already had 740 which was enough to get a car loan with 1.9% apr (lowest offered was 1.85%)
Care to elaborate on why not?
Just so I know. I’m not saying you’re wrong.
I understand what survivorship bias is, I just don’t see how it applies here. Could you explain?
That just because you managed to do that doesn’t make it the norm.
You could argue that that simply isn’t an option for many people. If you can live life without using a credit card implies you have not struggled for that extra cash, whereas some people simply don’t make enough to not use it.
You don’t actually need a good credit score to get a loan. The only reason FICO scores exist is to reduce the amount of work banks have to do to investigate potential customers. However, many smaller banks are willing to do a manual underwriting, where they look at your history and make a decision based on that instead.
Obviously if your credit score is low that is indicative of poor borrowing habits which will probably be corroborated by manual underwriting. However, if you have no credit history at all, you will probably get a better outcome than if the bank only looked at the FICO score.
Look for community banks, which are very small banks that serve your local community. Those banks are far more willing to give customized service like manual underwriting.
Better credit scores will definitely net you a lower interest rate, though. Zero credit history is a major liability for lenders, so even small banks or credit unions with private investors will want some kind of benefit or incentive for taking on an increased risk of default.
The real fucked up part about credit scores is that it seems like it should be something the federal government regulates, but they don’t. For-profit companies do. And when they get hacked and expose all of your data so scammers can assume your identity for eternity, they can’t be held liable or responsible. All of that just so lenders can feel safer about who they give money to.
I’m actually part of a credit union and would recommend it to many people. The credit union didn’t get interest rates as low as what the big banks did a few years ago, but they’re also not as high as the big banks are currently.
One thing I really liked about the credit union was that they didn’t use my credit score when deciding my interest rate, they only checked it to make sure it didn’t have any glaring issues. Also I like that the credit union doesn’t sell my mortgage to a third party.
Regulate how? It’s a tool for lenders to decide if they want to lend or not, and on what terms.
And also a tool for landlords to decide whether or not to rent to you, for insurers to decide what your rates should be, and employers to decide whether or not to hire you. It isn’t just about bank loans.
What about transparency? Sure, you can request a free copy of your credit report… once per year. Any more often than that and you have to pay. How do I dispute errors or inaccuracies on my report? How do the big three calculate my credit score? Why do each of them come up with a different number for the same individual despite sharing a similar set of parameters, and which one is used against me if I am denied for something on the basis of poor credit? What happens when they mishandle my sensitive data like my Social Security number, and what kind of legal options do I have to seek recompense?
You might be surprised to learn that the government does in fact regulate consumer reporting agencies. Ever heard of the Fair Credit Reporting Act? A lot of those rules came about from the systemic abuse of the clients of these credit reporting firms, including institutional racism.
The question is, why are these firms still allowed to operate as independent agencies and not as an apparatus of the state? What is the value of having these entities be private?
I don’t disagree that these services are necessary for our economy to function, and we can’t just tell people that they can’t come up with a system to determine loan risk for their clients, but there are some serious problems with the way credit scores work and how they are used in making certain decisions that should, in my opinion, be handled by an entity not concerned with making a profit off of their mostly unwilling clientele.