Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 313 posts

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#131

Post by gnopgnip »

dhimes wrote: post #10
bluedino wrote: post #4

The credit reporting system probably wouldn't work if you had to have the account holder's 'permission' to add events to it - you have to do it in this automated way. Although it can be a pain, the responsibility of if your credit report is accurate falls on you, the consumer. You should many of the free services to check your credit and then dispute any events that aren't correct. Most people don't have issues but y…

Although it can be a pain, the responsibility of if your credit report is accurate falls on you, the consumer. I can only be responsible for the things I do. If some shithead wants to give third-party information about me it better be accurate, and if its inaccuracy causes me harm it should be actionable.

If a creditor incorrectly reports a debt after writing to the creditor and credit reporting company you can sue them under the FCRA for actual damages or the statutory $1000 per violation.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#132

Post by superuser2 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #124
SystemOut wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do my parent's credit history have anything to do with my credit history in the US? Are you talking about co-signing for loans or possibly how a child can get a card under their parents' name? I didn't think either of those had any impact on the child's credit score.

Given what I hear about US banks, this seems like a most obvious variable to include in computing the credit score. Which leads me to my question - is there an official/exhaustive list of what exactly is considered and how, or is that a banking secret?

The factors are, in decreasing order of weight:

- Credit card utilization (balance as a percentage of available credit at last statement close)

- On-time payments (you just have to pay the minimum required by the date specified for it to count)

- Derogatory marks (collections, bankruptcies, foreclosures and liens)

- Average age of accounts (this favors older people who have been using credit a long time but not opening a lot of accounts recently)

- Total number of accounts (also rewards a mixture of types - car, student, credit card, mortgage, etc)

- Hard inquiries (very slightly dings your score if you're currently looking for credit, punishes you harder if you're desperately applying to everything you can find because this indicates financial emergency and therefore high risk).

https://www.creditkarma.com/article/credit-score-factors

If you use CreditKarma, it'll explain all this and how the values on your credit report fit in to the averages.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#133

Post by DiabloD3 »

asddddd wrote: post #94
thechao wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance: Time Warner Cable screwed up my cable package, charging me 220$ (a la carte) rather than 90$ (bundle). I contacted them, they admitted the mistake, and fixed the next month---I still ended up out 65$. I'd really like that money (moral imperative), but there's no legal way for me to seek relief for that small amount. If TWC messes up 1/50 accounts, once a year, for 50$, then they stand to make 500k--1mm$…

File a complaint with the FCC or BBB and (at least with Comcast) they'll suddenly be very eager to fix the problem. Ran into a similar issue where I was told one thing and billed for another, a few days after a BBB complaint they had someone from "executive customer relations" calling/emailing me to get it resolved ASAP.

The BBB is not a government agency, it is a private company that works for large businesses. Members of the BBB (such as Comcast) can pay the BBB to mark complaints as resolved, without resolving them.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#134

Post by adrianmacneil »

swalberg wrote: post #118
bsbechtel wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you have a suggestion for a system that works better, or do you prefer banks lend the money from your savings account without any sort of evaluation of how likely it is to be paid back?

I don't think the credit score itself is the problem, it's that it's the only thing banks use. There is no discretion for cases where the mode doesn't have enough information. As one example that has affected me, I moved to the US a year ago. Go to buy a used car last month with bank statements showing a good salary and enough cash to buy the vehicle outright, a check for 1/3 of the car price, and phone numbers of my…

The problem is of course that these decisions have to be made consistently across the country, and the banks don't want to try on the "gut feel" of some random bank manager. Of course the system/criteria could be improved, but wanting consistency is not surprising.

Anyway, I had a similar issue with car loans when moving to the US. I've since realized that it's pretty trivial to increase your credit score if you pay a small amount of attention to it. Simply sign up for credit karma, get a few no annul fee credit cards, and put a small purchase on them every few months so that they don't get closed due to inactivity. Within 12 months your credit score will be stellar.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#135

Post by justinlardinois »

Karunamon wrote: post #106
ufmace wrote: post #74

Speaking of credit annoyances, I've seen a lot of "dark patterns" appearing on the credit agency websites for ordering your Federally-mandated free annual credit report. Their workflow for getting the credit report is structured to push you towards signing up for some kind of monthly subscription to some monitoring service, to the point where it's very difficult to find the buttons to just get the free credit report.…

The trick there is to stay far away from the individual sites and only use annualcreditreport.com

annualcreditreport.com takes you to the credit bureaus' websites, which themselves have the problem he's talking about.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#136

Post by jasonlotito »

ThomPete wrote: post #108
rco8786 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you think that is absurdly backwards. Not necessarily disagreeing, but it's not hard to justify wanting to see a history of repayment vs trusting by default.

It's absurdly backwards because it's asking you to create debt which normally is the opposite of showing you are good with money and I would question the validity of seeing people paying back limited debt to be indicative of ex. borrowing for a house. You could instead just look at the history of their debit card usage to figure out whether they are trustworthy. As I said though I understand why they do it, it's just…

> It's absurdly backwards because it's asking you to create debt which normally is the opposite of showing you are good with money

Citation required because debt is not the same thing as money, so associating them together like you do with your assertion requires something more than just your illogical statement.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#137

Post by hellogoodbyeeee »

superuser2 wrote: post #101
ThomPete wrote: post #83

The US is as far as I know the only country in the world who have a positive creditscore system. At least in Europe it's mostly based on a negative creditscore i.e. you are trusted by definition but if you don't pay your bills you end up not being allowed access to credit. In the US they don't trust you per definition and instead you have to prove that you are good with money by basically creating debt and then payin…

>you are trusted by definition I felt pretty "trusted by definition." Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen. A few years later I had an $8,000 limit card and a $10,000 limit card. I bought my car certified-pre-owned under a program that writes favorable low-cost loans to recent college graduates with no or limited credit history (with an offer letter or paystubs). You just aren't truste…

It sounds like you are at least ten years out of college. Federal regulations have changed and now it is more difficult for a college student to access credit cards

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#138

Post by justinlardinois »

edoceo wrote: post #23
codegeek wrote: post #17

Some steps to monitor your credit (USA): 1. Signup for https://www.creditkarma.com . Yes, you can argue about giving your credentials to a 3rd party company and they show you ads but credit karma sends me real time activity on my credit report FOR FREE. I get offers etc but I am happy since I can keep an eye on my credit report from all agencies. (except Experian who want you to pay them for report). 2. Get a free cr…

#2 doesn't work. That site is super buggy and the Experian connection hasn't worked for 4+ years.

I've never had any issues with it myself.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#139

Post by wyager »

sbov wrote: post #123
wyager wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poor, in debt, barely making ends meet? You're lucky if you can get a credit card for under 30% APR. What about that doesn't make sense? The person you described carries an incredibly high default risk. If credit scores are unfair to the poor, it's because they don't provide accessible way to fix errors. If your credit score is low because you're in excessive debt and unlikely to pay it off, then the credit scoring…

I don't think they're saying it doesn't make sense. The point is, we help those that don't need help, and hurt those that are already hurting. We give better rates to people with high credit scores, but people with low ones probably need it more. It can turn into a feedback loop where the only way out is some form of outside help.

Credit scores are not a charity mechanism; they are a way of estimating someone's default risk. People with low credit scores don't get high loan rates because their credit scores are low; they get high loan rates because they're probably extremely risky borrowers. If you want to help poor people, the way to do that is not to ask banks to take on irrational risk for no good reason. In fact, making loans more accessible to people who are in bad debt might actually be actively bad for them.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#140

Post by ArkyBeagle »

ThomPete wrote: post #108
rco8786 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you think that is absurdly backwards. Not necessarily disagreeing, but it's not hard to justify wanting to see a history of repayment vs trusting by default.

It's absurdly backwards because it's asking you to create debt which normally is the opposite of showing you are good with money and I would question the validity of seeing people paying back limited debt to be indicative of ex. borrowing for a house. You could instead just look at the history of their debit card usage to figure out whether they are trustworthy. As I said though I understand why they do it, it's just…

They don't care if you're "good with money". They care that you can demonstrate a habit of making payments on time.
Post reply on HN