Talk:Credit score in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed Link to Annual Credit Report[edit]

This is a link to a for profit company, yet the link makes it sound like it's the sole government sponsored link to get a copy of your credit reports. There are lots of free ways to do this. The fact the site advertises itself as "the offical" is spam. Who says it's offical?. Not the US government 99.190.231.241 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Jean Bell[reply]

Yes it does. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/02/facta.shtm someone who knows the wikipedia syntax please put that link back. =) 65.26.29.42 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) oh, found a better link http://www.ftc.gov/freereports 65.26.29.42 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Redirected Incorrectly?[edit]

This topic appears to have been split into a seperate page from the main Credit Score article incorrectly, the discussion link at the top of that page redirects here, which is the wrong discussion, and I think either the whole article should redirect or the talk page should be fixed. Can anyone provide a policy or advice regarding this? SamDN (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the original "Credit score" article. But because it only discussed the United States, it was renamed "Credit score (United States)" on 25 January 2006 and a new global "Credit score" article was created for several countries, including the US. For some strange reason, the global Talk:Credit score redirects to this US specific Talk:Credit score (United States). Although it is easy to remove the redirect, before I do so I'm first asking if any other editor knows why it is redirected here or is that redirect an artifact of the split? — Joe Kress (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FICO name updates, article citations, possible bias[edit]

I plan to update this article, as I have done with the Fair Isaac (now FICO) article, to make sure all references to Fair Isaac are now FICO per the recent brand name change. Also, I plan to research the article citations as the tags request, and update the general language to clarify how exactly the different scoring systems are related to each other. There seems to be some bias in the doctoring section of Criticisms and Controversies - the Business Week article is the only source for this entire section. Can anyone help find other sources to either support this viewpoint as mainstream, or show opposing viewpoints? Kat Malone (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the above items, and will also now research and update the "Makeup of a Credit Score" section, since it lacks most citations and the information is very unclear.Kat Malone (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem of the Fico model is that there is no independant veirification of compliance with their stated critieria for setting scores. The Federal Reserve, the banks, Credit reporting Agencies are not independant 3rd parties. The information collected, maintained and inputed into the credit reporting model is not necessarily availble or complianct with the stated model as presented in this article. For example, the ranking of a single late payment represents what exactly to ones score?

Finally there has been a fundamental change in the FICO scoring model in 2009 which represented a signifigant shift in scores for most people. (estimated as 20 points, but more likely in the 100 point range):

"Finer shadings of “good”, “fair” and “bad” credit

One of the biggest differences will be the way that FICO recognizes different levels of consumer habits. For instance, right now if you are late for a payment — you are late. And your credit score falls indiscriminately. The new FICO credit score will sense finer shadings, looking at how often you are late with your payment. A single late payment will not be as damaging to your credit score as it has been in the past.

Because of new technology, and because of how well consumer habits are tracked, the FICO credit score is possible. The downside is that consumer habits (including what you spend your money on) can also be incorporated into your credit score.

Starting in January 2009, you can expect to see changes to your credit score. Kiplinger reports that a large number of consumers (between 40% and 50%) are likely to see a shift of around 20 points in the credit score — either up or down. So keep an eye out."

http://credit101.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/fico-to-update-credit-scores-in-2009/

The Real problem with Credit and credit scoring is the lack of any independant opinions on the process. There are millions of pages on "why" you should buy and monitor your credit history .... only a handful on how it actually operates. This post is a particular example of positive spin by the credit industry with nonsense like the relaitonship between availablilty of credit to credit scoring. A good credit score will deteriorate quickly with a divorce, disability or job loss that has nothing to do with this models ability to predict any of the above. Since these are the leading causes of bad debt, the credit scoring model is basically an opaque system used to deny portions of the population credit based on discriminatory medelling. the best par is that we have little on no idea what actual information theyt use!

user: snetherc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.213.249 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Traditional Uses of Credit Scores[edit]

"Some employers, especially financial institutions, will request permission from job applicants to run a credit check as part of their application process. This credit information can be used as an indicator of a person's level of financial responsibility. Note that job applicants have certain rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and are not required to consent to a credit check."

This sentence is probably better placed under Credit History rather than here.It is technically correct. However,while credit reports are used for employment purposes, scores are not. Vaheterdu (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

politicing in the introduction[edit]

  • Because a score does not consider race, sex or ethnicity, it is generally considered to be the most fair and objective underwriting tool available to lenders. The Federal Reserve Board did a study that noted scores have increased the availability of credit and reduced the cost of credit. Scores have also proven to be very predictive in assessing risk.

I really question the presence of statements like this in the introduction. The entire article has the tone of something from a trade publication rather than an encyclopedia. The series of statements I've highlighted don't explain "what", they promote the goodness of credit scores. Articles should not be determining what tool is the "most fair and objective". They should be explaining what the tool is. 70.234.244.169 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow theres no credit score scale here[edit]

e.g 720-x = good 400-600 = poor etc etc where is this information how could it not be in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CE Score[edit]

The following comment was moved from User talk:Joe Kress#CE Score. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


My name is Ed DeShields and I am the creator and hold the intellectual property rights of the CE Score. I notice that you are editing this page and instead of creating a tit-for-tat Wiki campaign I'd like you to consider the facts about how you edit the CE Score section.

I made an attempt to correct the record which you immediately reverted to your view of the CE Score. Your instance is incorrect.

Here is your copy and my comments to which I trust you will consider in your correction or future edits:

You say: "Another credit consumer score is published by "Community Empower" and "Quizzle" as the CE Score. The score reported by these agencies is NOT an actual FICO score, but an approximation based on proprietary algorithms.[citation needed]. This score is sold to lenders but free to consumers."

First, the CE Score is published by CE Analytics and is licensed to various entities including "Community Empower" and "Quizzle" and other licensees.

Second, the CE score, should be capitalized as, "CE Score".

Third, and completely untrue is that "The score reported by these agencies is NOT an actual FICO score, but an approximation based on proprietary algorithms." Mr Kress, the CE Score is not an approximation of the FICO score and is not to be compared. The CE Score, like all scores are based on proprietary algorithms. Your slant sounds and like you are specifically bias towards the FICO brand and is a disservice to the reader. You even emphasize it's "NOT" a FICO as if to say is it invalid. This is derogatory -- must like the FAKO moniker. There is no meaningful purpose to judge, as to dismiss, any score including the CE Score.

Finally, the score is both sold and by lenders, investment banks and other financial institutions. Note the distinction is that not all financial institutions are lenders. Also, notable is that it is the uniquely and always free to the consumer market (I believe to be an important advocate for the consumer).

I notice you struck the mention of the publisher, CE Analytics. If you mention Fair Issac as FICO's publisher then it should be appropriate to mention CE Analytics or visa-versa you must omit Fair Issac from the article it would seem to me.

Further you struck my citation as fluff. I am the most credible source on the subject yet you removed by citation describing the score and its applications. The innovation in the CE Score makes it especially important because it is designed to assess risk on pools of loans -- an innovation that FICO admits publicly it doesn't address.

So, as an editor you are now armed with the facts and I urge you to improve the article if you wish, or stand aside and I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edeshields (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information which I will consider when I reword CE Score. I removed your rewrite because you as the creator of CE Score have an inherent conflict of interest and thus Wikipedia does not allow you to edit this section except with the consensus of other editors (discuss here instead). Only a short section on the CE Score can be included because of its low usage relative to other scores (greater usage in the future will warrant a larger section). This conforms to the Wikipedia policy on undue weight.
I do not understand some of your comments: "the score is both sold and by lenders, investment banks and other financial institutions." If the score is sold by lenders, investment banks and other financial institutions, who do they sell it to? It can't be to the consumer because you explicitly state "always free to the consumer market". This contradicts your own statement when you reworded the article's CE Score section to state "The CE Score ... are sold to ... consumers ...". Assuming that you or your licensees do not sell the score to consumers (except when consumers request it more frequently than every six months), do you sell the score to lenders who then lend money to consumers to buy houses backed by mortgages? It seems that your main market is "investment banks, private equity firms and mortgage portfolio managers" because it is "designed to assess risk on pools of loans". — Joe Kress (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you understand. The CE Score has a market share about equal to the Vantage Score in the consumer market so it is fair that it exceeds the Undue Weight thinking. It is not a approximation of FICO, but a score that uses its own proprietary algothrims. It is among the newest score models (proven by millions of distributions) on the market. The CE Score is (always) free to consumer through licensee sites. Our average customer accesses their free score about four times per year. As for the institutional/lender channel, the CE Score is sold to lenders and investment banks in the secondary mortgage markets and buyers of mortgage pools use our score to assess the risk on a pool of loans (usually underwritten using the FICO). So it's a bank to bank reassessment risk score so to speak for this channel (a super-score of sorts). They don't resell the score to consumers but sell the loans, based on CE Score categories, to other institutional investors who would not buy them if not properly risk measured. FICO's president (Mr. Green) is on-record stating FICO is not particularly effective at this stage in the life of the mortgage. The CE Score is.

Finally, I'm not trying to promote anything but only to correct the record for the truth. I actually limited my comments to two simple sentences. These sentences then got removed and all mention of this important part of the scoring industry was eliminated. Sad.

What I recommend you do is to change the category to the "FICO Credit Score" because there is no other mention of any other industry player (allowed?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edeshields (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that a person who never uses credit will have a N/A or bad credit score. Is this true? Can the criticism explain this?[edit]

http://a.wholelottanothing.org/2011/08/credit-scores-are-bullshit.html

Credit has always looked like a suckers game to me. I was informed via mail that when I tried to get satellite television setup for my grandfather (because the cable company is robbing him) who was unwilling to give the company his financial information that my credit score wasn't good enough for a the 20~30$ monthly bill. I was told by the receptionist that this practice has been going on for only a few years, and it was the first time I encountered it. I do not know if it is the fact that I have never been in debt, or that my bank account is not super active, that my credit score is low or non-existent. Seems like discrimination based on credit scores should be illegal; as it presumes that a person is willing to put themselves in debt. Other sites say take out loans just for the hell of it. I don't think self respecting people would be willing to abide by such nonsense (at any rate. The television could not be setup for trees in the area. The cable company's monopoly holds sway.)

Yes this is not a forum, but neither are people non-social creatures. --184.21.215.174 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is not a forum, but I'd like, just like you, to have more information as a French citizen, on how the credit system works in the US. I don't understand how deep the impact of the credit score is. Is it a requirement in the US ? We hear so many stories of people unable to get anything without a good FICO score that I wonder if it's not part of the US way of life. I have researched a lot about credit (because it doesn't exist in my country in that extent) and I feel like this article misses the point and doesn't provide enough information as to the real impact and reach of the system. But well I wonder if one can do such an analysis without bias. I know I couldn't so maybe it's okay to stay minimalist...2A01:E34:EC03:EE40:40AF:B372:EBF3:7286 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Experian FICO score from myFICO.com[edit]

Consumers can get their generic Experian FICO score from myfico.com in 2013 by first time since 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.181.217 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source that is independent of Experian and FICO, relevant to this article's topic, if you think it deserves mention in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misreported[edit]

If something is misreported, that means that you know that it is incorrect information. But two lines above it says that only some generalizations have been released. So how do we know if what was released is to be trusted, and that what has been represented is wrong? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Credit score in the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The reference to CreditKarma.com is misleading. This site appears to estimate your FICO score and not provide you with the actual number. I tried out the website and it told me that my score was 760. I went to MyFICO.com (the company that actually computes the score) and they reported my score to be exactly 804. Rrouse (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Credit score in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposed changes[edit]

Information to be added or removed: Suggest improving the FICO score factors pie chart with a better graphic that has percentage labels.

Current chart: current chart

Suggested replacement: better chart

Explanation of issue: current chart is an approximation

References supporting change: myFICO Credit Education article

ElizabethatFICO (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 4-FEB-2020[edit]

  Unable to review  

  • The file must first be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons along with the appurtenant use license before it can be requested to be added to the article.

Regards,  Spintendo  03:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File uploaded to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

@Spintendo: Thanks. File has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons with the appurtenant use license.

ElizabethatFICO ElizabethatFICO (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:FICO Score Chart.png
The percentages in this chart reflect how important each of the categories is in determining how your FICO Scores are calculated.

ElizabethatFICO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete credit scoring model names[edit]

I'm using this section to list sources which describe obsolete names of presumably current FICO models to help with replacing obsolete information on credit scoring model names.

3 sources added: Fabrickator (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a bit of "stream of consciousness" text here ...

My attention was drawn to the FICO score->Ranges section because it used all this obsolete nomenclature. But to determine what this should contain, I need to grasp what this section is supposed to be conveying. Let's see what's in there now:

  1. broad categories of credit score types
  2. score ranges
  3. score statistics (percent of people with score between two values)
  4. scoring "grades" ... range of scores corresponding to subjective descriptions, e.g. "good"
  5. the vast variety of scoring models
  6. FICO model nomenclature
  7. get "bonus" scores for free when you pay to see your scores
  8. getting FICO scores for free compliements of credit card issuer
  9. collection scores
  10. sources of free FICO scores

This just seems like a mish-mosh to me. I am getting sleepy. Please post if you have any insights to offer. Fabrickator (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Names of FICO scores in the article are correct[edit]

Some readers know little about personal credit scores in America, including FICO scores. There are several FICO scores with two names, and both are correct. Some names are more common. The criticism at the beginning of the article is incorrect and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitholov (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bitholov: The point of the "accuracy notice" at the opt of the article is that the article references score names which can be very difficult to distinguish, even for those readers who actually have quite a bit of knowledge about U.S. credit scores. Whether a particular name is "obsolete" depends, I suppose, on point of view. You state that HSBC provides customers with the NextGen credit score (or is that the Pinnacle score?), but which NextGen score is that? Without the version number, it's ambiguous. Too often, we see scores identified without the version number.
So your point may be valid that some of the names are not actually "obsolete", but rather, alternative names. Different people may hold different views as to which is the most prevalent name, it is not apparent who should be the arbiter of the "standard" name... FICO would seem like the obvious answer (for all FICO scores), yet it seems like the CRAs have some claim to this also. Then what is something that is called a "Beacon" score, if it doesn't say "Beacon 5"? Nobody knows.
Clearly, my perspective is that designations such as FICO Score 8" (presumably generic) are generally the best approach, so maybe "NextGen" would be a bad example of an "obsolete" name, but it's still an ambiguous one. Fabrickator (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: Read here: http://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/infographic-what-are-the-different-scoring-ranges/#:~:text=The%20vast%20majority%20of%20home,Fair%20Isaac%20Risk%20model%20v2. FICO NextGen Risk Score (150-950) is active. There are 6. Equifax: Pinnacle 1.0 and 2.0, Experian: Experian/FICO Advanced Risk Score 1.0 and 2.0 and TransUnion: FICO Risk Score NextGen and FICO Risk Score NextGen 03.
@Bitholov: Thank you for your source, supporting my statement that although "NextGen" may not be "obsolete", it is nevertheless ambiguous. We can also observe how the notation seems quite problematic, i.e. whether there is a correspondence between the pairs of "NextGen" scores at each of the CRAs. Per FICO's FAQs About Credit Scores, FICO designates these as "FICO NG"; there are evidently two generations of "FICO NG", so these need to be distinguished. The main point I am making is to avoid CRA-specific names, and the value to this is clear in that FICO considers there to be a correspondence between the "NG" scores available from each CRA. (It's somewhat ironic that we're focusing on the NG scores, given that ... in my experience, at least ... the FICO NG scores rarely come up when people have questions or discussion about their credit scores.) Fabrickator (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bitholov: What I have in mind is that the article should generally refer to standard names for each model. Insofar as FICO scores are concerned, I presume FICO as the authoritative source, e.g. names as defined somewhere on the fico.com site, such as in "Understanding FICO Scores" (https://www.fico.com/en/resource-access/download/4307) or similar documentation... For example:

FICO base Score 8
FICO Auto score 8
FICO® Bankcard Score 8
FICO base Score 9
FICO Auto score 9
FICO® Bankcard Score 9

The "classic" models (FICO 2/4/5) do not quite fit in, and between Pinnacle, Beacon, and I don't know what else, it gets a little messier, but referencing credit bureau-specific names to these standard names would at least be a start on reducing confusion. Fabrickator (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bitholov: Here is another document providing names of different "generations" of FICO scoring models "FICO Research Brief: Impact of the CRAs' Enhanced Public Record Standards on FICO Scores" (https://www.fico.com/en/resource-access/download/4438). This provides explicit meaning to the "generations" of FICO scores (e.g. "FICO Score 8" refers collectively to a "family" of credit scores applied to each of the credit bureaus). Admittedly, this seems fairly obvious, but sometimes an explanation will focus on the distinction between credit scores for each credit bureau (as I see it, these explanations imply that "FICO 8 EX" is no more related to "FICO 8 EQ" than it is to "FICO 9 EQ"; this contradicts that.
This defines the term "classic" to refer to a series of "families" of FICO credit scoring models, which essentially precludes using "classic" in the way I had suggested. However, they do have a terminology to refer to "FICO 2/4/5". That terminology is "Previous FICO Score", but this doesn't really seem suitable as a general way to refer to that "family" of models. Nevertheless, this provides an authoritative source for the names of the "common" FICO models (up to "FICO 9 score"), and documents additional details such as the "Beacon Score" equivalents. Fabrickator (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC); FICO document links updated Fabrickator (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very similar table of FICO scoring models (the only real difference is that this merges the FICO 9 information into the same table, albeit in a separate section), which becomes visible when you click on the question "Do I have more than one FICO Score?" at https://www.ficoscore.com/faq/. Fabrickator (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Hello, Fabrickator. I understand you. "FICO base Score" is wrong, it is named "FICO score" only (official name for the classic FICO score (300-850)): eg. FICO score 8 or FICO score 9. The other FICO scores are fine. There are more than 60 different FICO scores (including the 3 credit bureau) for each person, but around 28 or less are used. The description of FICO scores on "Ranges" is correct, but complex, because it has no the specific names of each FICO score. A chart of FICO scores is better, but I don't know how to do it. Your source is good, but it has the common FICO scores only. Each type of FICO score has 3 options: eg. Experian (EX) FICO Auto score 9, Equifax (EQ) FICO Auto score 9 and TransUnion (TU) FICO Auto score 9. The same name of the score for each credit bureau. These are active FICO scores:
-FICO Score 2 (5 types): EX FICO 98 scores (1998 FICO score version with personal data from Experian): EX FICO Score 2, EX FICO Auto Score 2, EX FICO Bankcard Score 2, EX FICO Personal Finance Score 2 and EX FICO Installment Loan Score 2.

-FICO Score 3 (5 types): EX FICO 04 scores (2004 FICO score version with personal data from Experian): EX FICO Score 3, EX FICO Auto Score 3, EX FICO Bankcard Score 3, EX FICO Personal Finance Score 3, and EX FICO Installment Loan Score 3.

-FICO Score 4 (5 types): TU FICO 04 scores (2004 FICO score version with personal data from TransUnion): TU FICO Score 4, TU FICO Auto Score 4, TU Bankcard Score 4, TU Personal Finance 4, and TU Installment Loan Score 4.

-FICO Score 5 (6 types): EQ FICO 04 scores (2004 FICO version with personal data from Equifax): EQ FICO Score 5, EQ FICO Auto Score 5, EQ FICO Bankcard Score 5, EQ Mortgage Score 5, EQ FICO Personal Finance Score 5, and EQ FICO Installment Loan Score 5.

-TU FICO 98 score (5 types): classic score, auto score, bankcard score, personal finance score, and installment loan score.
-FICO Score 8 (12 types): 4 for each credit bureau. Classic score, auto score, bankcard score, and mortgage score only.
-FICO Score 9 (? types): I know classic score, auto score and bankcard score only = 9 types (3 x 3 credit bureau)
-FICO NextGen Risk Score (6 types): FICO score NG1 and FICO score NG2 for each credit bureau
-FICO XD 2 (3): a score for each credit bureau.
-FICO 10 score (2020): ?
-FICO 10 T score (2020):?
-UltraFICO score (2019): ?

Bitholov. 10/12/2020.

@Bitholov: (I am not sure what you have against signing with four tildes, or why you don't save yourself the trouble of notifying someone through a post on their "talk" page, when you could just insert a "ping" ... do you find these to be annoying?)
Point 1... I suggested we should be using "standard" names for scores (as found in any appropriate document on FICO's corporate website, and what's the very next thing I do? I suggest using terms that are not on the FICO website. Mea culpa, and so I shall offer an explanation.
Point 2... You wrote... "official name for the classic FICO score (300-850)): eg. FICO score 8 or FICO score 9". My bad. What I was intending to refer to by the "classic" score was not the "base" score, as you used the term in the Wikipedia "credit score" article, but to those models that did not have a common nomenclature across the different credit bureaus, specifically, FICO 2, FICO 4, and FICO 5. Now admittedly, FICO does not use "classic", but I am really offering this as a convenience for internal discussions, as I might point out to you: The tri-merge report includes the "classic" FICO scores from each of the 3 credit bureaus.
Point 3... "FICO base Score" is wrong, it is named "FICO score" only. Technically, FICO calls it the "base FICO score", as in Consumers can view their base FICO Score 8 ...; so they do indeed use "base", just a different word order. This is a simpler way to explicitly indicate that this is the "non-industry-specific score". This is considerably less cumbersome, and avoids adding a new term, such as the "generic" score.
These minor differences pale in comparison to our views of what should be the focus of this article. I would like it to be an article that serves the needs to the ordinary consumer. That means that scores which consumers are likely to encounter would be the main focus. You want to enumerate as many possible types of scoring models as you can. I am not saying this long list is extraneous, but these are of practical interest to a much smaller group.
So while there may be a place for the very comprehensive list you provide, this very long list does a poor job of serving those who have a "more ordinary" connection to their credit scores. Fabrickator (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FICO score makeup[edit]

I notice that the FICO "What is amounts owed?" page provides information on how money owed can affect credit score, i.e. they are calling out multiple factors that fit into this category, while among these, we mostly only see "revolving credit utilization" mentioned elsewhere. But they point out:

the amount of debt you have is not as significant to your credit score as your credit utilization.

And they also point out the fact that having a zero balance on all your accounts can negatively impact your credit score:

In some cases, a low credit utilization ratio will have a more positive impact on your FICO Scores than not using any of your available credit at all.

(Note that this should clarify that not using any of your "available revolving credit" is what can negatively impact your FICO credit score.)

Here are some other pages that have similar material:

Fabrickator (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved section to it's own article[edit]

I moved the Criticism section (now renamed to Inequality and discrimination) to it's own article Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failed scores available[edit]

Citation does not name specific scores which are available to consumers. Additionally, there is nothing in the source provided to indicate that specific scores which are not available to consumers directly from FICO could not be obtained from other sources.

Availability of specific scores from various sources tends to change. I think it would be difficult to establish that any given score is simply not available to consumers, and this information may not be that useful anyway, aside from the case of applying for a mortgage. Other than that, the consumers is unlikely to have much insight as to what score will be used in conjunction with approval of a given credit application, and having access to a plethora of scores mostly just adds to confusion. Fabrickator (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Reply: the source is the best (FICO), but it is old data (2015, 19 FICO scores available to individuals). In 2021, the most an individual in a personal capacity can get are 28 FICO scores on myfico.com (9 FICO scores (TU credit report), 9 for EQ, and 10 for EX). Nowhere else can you get more. There are over 60 FICO scores available to lenders. See if you can get more on you own, not like a lender who buys his/her own FICO scores. Thanks. YMVD (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The paragraph in question is loaded with claims but light on sources that support those claims. For the purpose of the {{failed verification}} tag, I considered the following claims:
  • Consumers can buy their FICO Score 8 for Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian from the myFICO website.
  • Consumers who buy the scores from FICO will get the following scores included for "free":
  • FICO Bankcard Score 8
  • FICO Auto Score 8
  • FICO Score 9
  • FICO Auto Score 9
  • FICO Bankcard Score 9
  • other FICO scores (1998 and 2004 versions).
  • Consumers also can buy their Equifax and Experian FICO Score 8 from Equifax and Experian respectively.
  • Other types of FICO scores are not offered directly to consumers.
The source is not "FICO", it is this story by FICO claiming that FICO makes 19 versions available. It doesn't name each of these versions, thus it doesn't support the claims about each version that's available. Nor do I see anything in this source to the effect that consumers could not get FICO cores from any other sources than FICO or the named credit bureaus. So over and over again, "verification failed". Fabrickator (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You are right, but the credit scores information is true, but there is not a written source for it, just buy and see FICO scores + credit reports with EQ, TU and EX data on myfico.com, and EX FICO score 8 and EQ FICO score 8 on each credit bureau website. YMVD (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, where do I begin? First off, truth matters, though some Wikipedians seem to dispute this, claiming that only verifiability matters. Anyhow, you mention your personal experience in buying FICO scores. Two problems: (1) The citation doesn't mention your personal experience, and (2) your personal experience isn't considered a reliable source. Additionally, you offered no evidence that other types of FICO scores are not offered directly to consumers. Whether true or not, this would seem to be quite difficult to establish. Non-consumers may obtain these other types of scores, then offer them to consumers. This might be the case even if FICO contractually prohibits it. Yet you have no way to know all of the contracts FICO enters into. And BTW, just because FICO says something is true about one of their credit scores, FICO may not actually be a reliable source for such a claim. FICO claims that FICO scores are the only scores with meaningful significance, but if you don't know which FICO score a particular lender is using, then it's really quite debatable whether a "random" FICO score (whichever one of the 19 or 29 or 69 FICO scores there are) is any better than a non-FICO score. But keep in mind that as long as there are claims made which aren't supported by cited sources, the {{verification failed}} tag remains appropriate. Fabrickator (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why don't you delete that information without a verifiable source ?. It may be false. YMVD (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you dispute my {{verification failed}} tag when you have no basis? The purpose of this tag is to allow for someone to resolve the issue, particularly by providing a source. It also serves notice that the implicit claim that this information may not have a reliable source. My suggestion for you is to proceed more cautiously. You have made yourself appear foolish, probably more foolish than you actually are, and I say this because of the implicit directive to assume good faith. So in good faith, you challenged my flagging of the unsupported claims, and now you stand corrected, hopefully to contribute to WP in a more positive manner in the future. Fabrickator (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with claims of score availability[edit]

I will observe that a number of the claims made are rather problematic, such as those stating that consumers can obtain some set of credit scores from a particular source, as well as anything that implies that some score is exclusively available from a source or is not available from other sources. Offers to provide a particular set of scores (whether for free or for a fee), particularly from FICO or from one of the credit bureaus, are likely to be quite transitory, and we have no practical way to monitor the ongoing availability of such offers. Claims that a score is available exclusively are just not verifiable, because at any time, a credit bureau could enter into an agreement allowing a 3rd-party to resell their scores. Fabrickator (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verified claims[edit]

claims about scoring models[edit]

dubious sources[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Credit_score_in_the_United_States&oldid=1206851903"