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

Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 459 posts

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#251

Post by mikeash »

patio11 wrote: post #221
harryh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math behind credit scores is quite good. They're very effective at predicting credit risk.

This statement, which is currently greyed out, is an objective statement of engineering fact about one of the most important technologies introduced in the last one hundred years. I hope I have bought enough street cred to say the following by ghostwriting hundreds of letters to the credit reporting agencies to fix their problems, which are numerous and essentially inevitable given their model and present operations.…

It’s effectively for free, except for the massive society wide risk of fraud that they’ve foisted upon all of us. The stuff looks cheap because, like any polluting industry, the price does not reflect the true cost.

Surely there’s some third alternative other than “incompetent credit bureaus enable fraud” and “minorities have bad access to credit because lenders are super racist”?

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#253

Post by danShumway »

harryh wrote: post #125
hcurtiss wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, please. I'm merely emphasizing the point that the promised $125 (and I saw nothing in the way of a qualification when I made my claim), was fantasy from the beginning and likely to be a very small fraction of that amount. That fact is objectionable. Your focus on a turn of phrase is unhelpful and does not contribute to the conversation at hand. HN is better than that.

I am glad that my offer to take you up on your bet has lead you to clarify your position into something less hyperbolic. Precision is important.

Precision is important, but understanding context, common cultural idioms, and responding substantively to them is more important.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

On the odds of the payout literally dropping below $1, that would require roughly 21% of eligible people to sign up - 31 million. The FTC has claimed that "millions" have already signed up, but hasn't given more exact numbers.

We can assume that the rate of sign ups will slow down as time goes on, but people also have until January 2020 to file a claim. If 4 million people file, that will drop the payout to $7.75.

I doubt the payout will drop below $1, but if I were a betting person I'd be willing to bet a moderate amount that the (initial) amount will drop below $10. Depending on the odds given, I don't think it would unreasonable for someone to bet that it will drop below $5. Note that this is assuming that the FTC doesn't literally turn off the option and prevent people from claiming the money.

In either of those scenarios, the original commenter's point is still basically the same, which is that this is an absurdly low amount to pay for a breach of this size. I'd also also potentially support the government dismantling Equifax, which was the actual point of the parents post.

I'll even add to that point that Equifax's free credit monitoring comes with its own arbitration agreement, which is so egregious and tone-deaf that it makes me furious. The government should not allow a company to put an arbitration agreement into a service it's being forced to provide as a result of a class action settlement.

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#255

Post by souterrain »

harryh wrote: post #132
mceachen wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a Standard Car Dealership or Mortgage Lender going to support you redlining an agreement, crossing out the sections you don't like (which include oversharing every and all morsel of data they can fetch from you)? No. The salesperson/CSR is going to be confused, and not even know how to proceed. In none of these cases did I opt in. And I decidedly couldn't opt-out.

Yes, if you want to borrow money, the person loaning you money is generally going to insist that you opt into the system that helps them understand if you are a good credit risk or not. That's not an unfair request on their part. Don't want to participate? Then don't ask for a loan.

What's unfair is the pretense that this is a market transaction between two equal parties. The "person" loaning the money is quite frequently a large corporation with access to resources allowing them to leverage the credit bureau system and the legal system to achieve an outcome in their favor. Most consumer borrowers don't have the resources to retain counsel or sue.

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#256

Post by telchar »

patio11 wrote: post #221
harryh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math behind credit scores is quite good. They're very effective at predicting credit risk.

This statement, which is currently greyed out, is an objective statement of engineering fact about one of the most important technologies introduced in the last one hundred years. I hope I have bought enough street cred to say the following by ghostwriting hundreds of letters to the credit reporting agencies to fix their problems, which are numerous and essentially inevitable given their model and present operations.…

Most of what you say is correct but it's wrong to say that regulation isn't responsible for race being absent from FICO calculation. It's fair to say that lenders would use factors like race in a heartbeat if it weren't illegal, but it is illegal to do that. If FICO were race-based, using FICO would be depending on race indirectly, but explicitly, to make loan decisions. Thus FICO can't be dependent on race.

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#257

Post by rootusrootus »

nostrademons wrote: post #142
throwawaycert wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit scores change constantly. What your 80 point drop told creditors is "This person might not have enough money to pay their bills, or is careless or forgetful.". You are perceived as higher risk because, statistically, you are a higher risk. Those of us who maintain excellent credit do it in part by making sure our money gets where it's supposed to. I check online to make sure payments post, or hand in payments…

I was surprised how much they change constantly, for silly things like how much balance you have on your credit cards. My wife & I both have excellent credit scores, and we pay all of our bills in full every month. Nevertheless, I've noticed a ~50 point swing in credit scores from month-to-month, all dependent on whether airline tickets, furniture, or charitable contributions happened to make it onto this month's bil…

It's worth remembering that an important aspect of your score is your value as a customer. Risk is one element. Carrying a balance gives you more value than if you never carry a balance.

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#258

Post by pcmaffey »

mikeash wrote: post #251
patio11 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement, which is currently greyed out, is an objective statement of engineering fact about one of the most important technologies introduced in the last one hundred years. I hope I have bought enough street cred to say the following by ghostwriting hundreds of letters to the credit reporting agencies to fix their problems, which are numerous and essentially inevitable given their model and present operations.…

It’s effectively for free, except for the massive society wide risk of fraud that they’ve foisted upon all of us. The stuff looks cheap because, like any polluting industry, the price does not reflect the true cost. Surely there’s some third alternative other than “incompetent credit bureaus enable fraud” and “minorities have bad access to credit because lenders are super racist”?

Also the existence of a centralized credit system increases the cost of not participating in the system. The lack of real competition (eg. for middle class credit) is what essentially leads to a polluted industry.

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#259

Post by judge2020 »

jameslevy wrote: post #104
noodlesUK wrote: post #6

Surely the FTC and Equifax saw this coming? 150m people were included in the breach. Only 31m USD was allocated to give anyone who claimed 125 USD? How on earth did they do this math?

Why does it even matter how much they allocated? If I allocate $10 to pay my rent, that doesn't mean my rent check will need to be adjusted. They need to allocate more, and if it puts them into bankruptcy (it won't), there are legal processes for handling their liabilities.

To put this into perspective:

Equifax/Revenue

3.36 billion USD

2017

Re: Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

#260

Post by salawat »

adrr wrote: post #85
zonidjan wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does when millions of people have similar anecdotes, and when the system is literally set up for it. Places can report whatever they want to. And you can dispute it, but the person who report it will just say "no, we're right" and it'll stay up.

If you could build a better algorithm to do underwriting, you could make billions. Companies try all the time like zest finance.

Why? Why feed into it? This is the mentality that kills me.

Why double down and try to make something that is already being gamed? The very definition of insanity is doing The same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

There is no right to operate a business that exposes everyone to risk they have no choice in whether to accept or not. Centralizing excessive amounts of data with obtuse and dubious control mechanisms/capacity for redress is a disaster waiting to happen.

Publicizing the risk, and privatizing the profits at it's finest.

Post reply on HN