Talk:Credit score in the United States

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed Link to Annual Credit Report

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pages Redirected Incorrectly? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FICO name updates, article citations, possible bias 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Non-Traditional Uses of Credit Scores 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  politicing in the introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wow theres no credit score scale here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I get the impression that a person who never uses credit will have a N/A or bad credit score. Is this true? <b>Can the criticism explain this?</b> 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Experian FICO score from myFICO.com 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misreported 

message: Substituted at 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629075039/http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/shared/money/stories/2007/12/CREDIT_SCORE_1207_COX.html?cxntlid=inform_artr to http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/shared/money/stories/2007/12/CREDIT_SCORE_1207_COX.html?cxntlid=inform_artr
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511204147/http://ftc.gov/os/2007/07/P044804FACTA_Report_Credit-Based_Insurance_Scores.pdf to http://www2.ftc.gov/os/2007/07/P044804FACTA_Report_Credit-Based_Insurance_Scores.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723171013/http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/pyip/stories/DN-moneytalk_07bus.ART.State.Edition1.4659990.html to http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/pyip/stories/DN-moneytalk_07bus.ART.State.Edition1.4659990.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123112730/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_07/b4071038384407.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_07/b4071038384407.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some proposed changes

message: * 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)
thread_title: Reply 4-FEB-2020

message: Thanks.  File has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons with the appurtenant use license.
ElizabethatFICO ElizabethatFICO (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: File uploaded to Wikimedia Commons

message: 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.
* FICO Score 9 based on TransUnion Data (formerly called FICO Risk Score, Classic): mentions "Risk Score", "Classic", and "Empirica"
* Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemReport to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the Availability and Affordability of Credit: mentions "Classic" and "NextGen" models at different credit buraus but does not mention numbered models
* FICO Research Brief: Impact of the CRA's Enhanced Public Records ...: shows mapping of old FICO 8 names
* What Are the Different Credit Scoring Ranges?: documents "FICO Score 5" as "Equifax Beacon 5.0"
* FICO Score (Doctor of Credit): states that "Beacon 5.0" is also known as "EQ-04"
* What is a Beacon Credit Score?: claims that "the Beacon credit score has become the Pinnacle credit score"
3 sources added: Fabrickator (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete credit scoring model names 

message: 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.
:  (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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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:
*myFICO: What's in Your Score?
* FICO Insurance Scores: What's in Your Score
Fabrickator (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FICO score makeup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved section to it's own article 

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Issues with claims of score availability