News Corporation | The Credit Score Blog

Credit score inquiries, ”less than five points” Wall Street Journal takes fewer words to describe effect of inquiries than even FICO score company Fair Isaac

TO: Annamaria Andriotis
CC: Jennifer Openshaw, Maria Lamagna, Brian Kelly, Elisabeth Hershman, Fair Isaac, Elizabeth Warren, Oscar Suris
FROM: Greg Fisher
DATE: Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM
SUBJECT: false information, Murdoch, Wall Street Journal, credit score, inquiries, 1,497 #1609aa

I am with the media, I am on a deadline, and I am writing about you, Follower. See this message and your response on the Credit Score Blog.

I know what I don’t know about credit scoring. You wrote, “One credit inquiry will remove less than five points off people’s FICO scores, according to FICO.”

So, you expressed the situation with inquiries in only 13 words. When and where did Fair Isaac (“FICO”) say that, and what is the name of the person who said it?

On different pages, the organization published these sentences

For most people, one additional credit inquiry will take less than five points off their FICO Scores. (17 words)

In general, inquiries have a small impact; typically, a single inquiry can lower a FICO Score by less than five points. (21 words)

For others, one additional inquiry would take less than 5 points off their FICO score. (15 words)

I daresay your explanation is oversimplified. The idea appears to be a talking point– the party line. The same statement, word-for-word, of one above: “For most people, one additional credit inquiry will take less than five points off their FICO Scores.”

Is it possible for an inquiry to lower a FICO score 5 points or more? Perhaps Fair Isaac (who is copied on this message) will provide more information about its secret. The greatest credit scoring expert in the world still works there. If he doesn’t have the answer, nobody does.

Another inquiry enquiry

One guy (he, literally, calls himself the Points Guy) has said “two to five points” so many times that he actually believes himself. Brian Kelly was the subject on another Dow Jones/News Corporation website a couple of days ago. Your colleague writes, “Kelly says that if you’re not getting more value than the annual fee, but you don’t want to cancel the card and lose the years of experience you have with it, which can negatively impact your credit score, you can see if there’s a no-fee card you can switch to with the same issuer.”

HOKEY SMOKE! See Credit Score Myth 8.

And while that guy has a lot of plastic, you need to pay attention to another corker: “The Man with 1,497 Credit Cards”! Try to get me an answer. The poor dude can’t comment on the viral story about him– because he is not even alive! I looked into it. I checked public records in California. #1601T

The Real BIG Credit Score has dozens of factors

Your item also states, “FICO scores are comprised of five factors.”

That is not true. Your statement is Credit Score Myth 5. Who told you that? #myth5

And, nobody is getting a mortgage loan with a credit score of 850. Who is your source?

By the way, isn’t the title of that one, “How to Perfect Your Credit Score,” pushing it a little? Who wrote that headline? #TheHed

Also, tell your supervisor to send a message up your chain of command that I want my comments to a 2008 article restored. I do not participate in such discussions for my health and I am not putting up with Rupert Murdoch’s silly nonsense. Furthermore, the article that was attached to my comments is false. Employers do not use credit scores. I looked into it.

There are three comments on your story’s page. Are you going to delete them, too?

I could go on and I think I will. Another article is still false. In its source code is this

meta name=”article.summary” content=”Many employers are checking job candidates’ credit scores, but how big of a factor are credit scores in a company’s eventual decision to hire?”

By now, 8 years after I documented one very bizarre phenomenon, people giggle when they see that error. That it continues (on new and old documents) is truly pathetic. I’m having a big party for the 10th anniversary in April, 2018.

What is your supervisor’s name? I want it to make sure that my messages are getting through to the top person of your organization.

Now, let’s not leave the guest of honor out of the conversation. Wells Fargo states, definitively, that a credit score is also known as a “credit rating.”

That is debatable, but here’s the fun part: John Stumpf, the top person of Wells Fargo also states, “Employers often check the credit rating of prospective employees.” #myth2

Hashtag: Myth 2.

FUN FACT: Did you know that Wells Fargo has bank charter No. 1?

Veracity check

Finally, here is today’s truth test of your organization. In an opinion item titled “Democrats’ Zika Obstruction” dated July, the Wall Street Journal states, “Majority Leader Harry Reid recently claimed the bill ‘exempts pesticide spraying from the Clean Water Act.'”

That is false. U.S. Senator Reid is the minority leader, not the majority leader (largely due to his party not being in the majority).

Tell your supervisor about that error of the history of my country written by an unnamed person. I will not stand for it. I demand that your organization correct that error today.

I trust you, Ms. Andriotis, but your company is in no position to decide when this pathetic story of truth and falsity ends. Rupert Murdoch, the top person of your organization, is incompetent, foolish, irresponsible and does not know his place.

What is your correction policy?

—
Greg Fisher
Truth and Falsity
truthandfalsity.com
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342
mobile/text 937-681-3224

Daily slog o’ da blog: What credit score are you talking about?

Da nooz of da day

A wild ride down a rabbit hole in New Jersey, the expert meets the dean of dating disasters and that (you know what).

Jersey

nj.com (aka the Star-Ledger) publishes a letter from a reader, one “Harry in Basking Ridge,” who says he has a credit score that would be outrageously high on one score’s scale. He got it by applying for a credit card (an important point). But, he wants to know, essentially, why certain things “adversely” affect his score, and why the system could see his credit file as negative.

Here’s the thing: In theory, all credit scores are all negative, unless perfect. And, they all come with reasons that the score is not higher. The only other non-negative possibility is Dave Ramsey‘s oft-repeated misinformation piece: No score due to lack of, or insufficient, credit history (just not enough data to go on to even calculate a score).

Reporters will be reporters, so the scribe with the by-line plows right in without getting clarification. Along for the ride is another willing quotable person as the newspaper reporter gives a wild explanation considering a multitude of fun facts, possibilities and speculations–about FICO scores, another score brand, a home equity line of credit, a personal line of credit, dubious advice about the proportion of balances to credit limits on revolving accounts and even mistaken identity.

Then, it goes off the rails with a comment about “default issues.”

Harry, that’s probably insulting, so a let’s talk.

While we’re waiting for him to make contact, consider a deeper implication of his scenario. Recent credit score disclosures, required by law, leave much to the imagination. One might say “Scores range from a low of 300 to a high of 850,” but what credit score it refers to is anybody’s guess.

Some disclosures say, “Your credit score ranks higher than [x] percent of U.S. consumers.” What the reader’s disclosure said in that regard is a mystery.

But, in a very peculiar case, another publication by the same company touched on the issue without even knowing it. If only…

Dating (again)

Out of the disclosure rabbit hole (for now), we bravely head into the Fox hole known as dating. The newspaper named the New York Times made it all the rage this year with a lovely little Christmas day tale, but unfortunately for the Times, the facts (and errors by the Times presented as facts) are unraveling.

Now, Experian (whose hanger-on-to the Queen chairman, himself, is a story) jumps in with its freecreditscore.com band brand and a survey (catnip for journalists; see LSU, below).

But who wouldn’t want to see the ever-ebullient Dean of Dating, chuckling Chucky-Chuck Woolery, again?! He’s the expert on love, and John Ulzheimer is the expert on credit scores. Take a look, and come back in 2 and 2.

Of all the Chucks, this guy is, well, one of them (because the best still rocks (‘n rolls)).

The takeaway for industry: Conduct a survey and get press, but be careful what you wish for.

The takeaway for citizens–consumers of news/infotainment: Don’t believe a thing that freecreditscore.com (Experian) says, despite their funny lip-synching, loveable loser band commercials.

Fox in the FOX house

“A poor credit score can haunt you throughout adulthood, affecting your ability to rent an apartment, finance a car, buy a home or even land your dream job.” – some guy, yesterday, published on a Fox Television Stations website

So, here we are. After 5 years, we still get a bald-faced and unsupported false statement like that. It is horrible. Notice the now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t change regarding a Louisiana State University study on a Rupert Murdoch website, the honorable correction by another party and the myth of the decade, still, on government websites.

History lesson: Senate Majority Leader

Testing the efficacy of a social media message

WARNING: You won’t find this in The Fountainhead or the copy of the U.S. Constitution that you carry around in your pocket.

Another one of Rupert Murdoch’s silly websites is factually inaccurate again.

Greta Van Susteren (in her headline, no less) blares, “Look who is going to Capitol Hill — on an invitation from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell!!”

!! (!)

Van Susteren has not replied.

As a voting citizen, you were involved in compiling a “Complete List of Majority and Minority Leaders (in fact that is exactly what it is called, and it is on your website). You see? He’s on the right (the losing side).

That is all elementary, but here is the big question: Who wrote the headline, “Caught between a job and your credit score“?

Hey kids! One positive outcome of this ridiculousness, is identifying, perhaps, what very-well could be the perfect responsive web design page! Watch what happens when you squish your browser window (which is, apparently, the ultimate test of this fabulous, fundamental new standard)! Try it!

Not almost 30 percent

“Keeping revolving credit low can have a positive impact on an individual’s credit score, since this accounts for almost 30 percent of a typical score.” – A Fair Isaac press release, December, 2012

Let’s say we have 100 loaves of bread. There are two categories: Baked, and not yet baked (still dough).

There are 30 loaves in the baked category, and there are 6 types of loaves within that 30:

1   white
1   wheat
1   sourdough
1   French
25  rye
1   multigrain
------------
30  TOTAL

If we add the 70 loaves that are not yet baked, the total is 100.

1   white
1   wheat
1   sourdough
1   French
25  rye
1   multigrain
70  not yet baked
----------
100 TOTAL

Is it honest to say that almost 30 percent of the loaves are rye?

FICO score Credit utilization, Wall Street Journal, 2012-12-01

From: Greg Fisher [mailto:greg@creditscoring.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 11:29 AM
To: Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO, News Corporation (via Julie Henderson)
Cc: Karen Blumenthal, columnist, Getting Going, Wall Street Journal, News Corporation; Karen Blumenthal (2)
Subject: credit score, Credit utilization, Wall Street Journal, 2012-12-01

You published:

Apart from what you actually owe, it especially helps to have unused credit available. “Credit utilization“—how much of your credit you actually use—accounts for 30% of the credit-score calculation. While the rule of thumb is to keep your credit use to no more than a third of your available credit, FICO high achievers use, on average, a skimpy 7% of the credit available to them.

However, according to Fair Isaac, 30% is a number referring to the importance of a category in calculating a FICO score called “Amounts Owed,” not “Credit utilization.” And, Amounts owed is driven by half a dozen factors, not just utilization. Fair Isaac explains that one of the items in the category is, indeed, “How much of the total credit line is being used and other ‘revolving’ credit accounts,” but it is only one of 6 items in that segment, and, in fact, is listed fifth.

One of the other items (one that you failed to mention) is “The amount owed on different types of accounts.” That introduces the idea of scoring based on specific types of loans—credit cards and installment accounts, for example. Another is, merely, “How many accounts have balances,” which has nothing to do with how much credit is actually used.

In 2009, a Fair Isaac spokesman told me: “When my company explains FICO scoring to a general audience, we apply general weights to major data categories such as, ‘Amounts Owed is 30 percent of a typical consumer’s score.’ We don’t break that weighting into finer parts for individual factors, both to avoid unintentionally misleading the public and to protect the model’s proprietary information. “

But if all of that is not overt enough for you, try this. Using the same words (apparently finally giving in, using the same, popular, over-simplifying street term) you use, Fair Isaac mentions this about the 30% category: “Credit utilization, one of the factors evaluated in this category, considers the amount you owe compared to how much credit you have available.”

So, now we finally know—in words straight from the horse’s mouth—that “Credit utilization” (despite wacky Wikipedia‘s inaccurate information) does not account for 30 percent of the score calculation; it is only one of the factors in the 30% category (and we have only a vague idea of its weight). What is not clear about that? You used quotation marks around the term credit utilization. Who are you quoting?

And, whose rule of thumb is it to use no more than a third of available credit? Is there some plateau at 33 percent? Are there only diminishing returns below that?

The state of the fourth estate is pathetic, so I created a website to deal with your industry’s poor attitude regarding accuracy. Corrections are published on Page A2.

Finally, what are you doing about my comments that you removed?

—
Greg Fisher
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
Page A2
pagea2.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342

[UPDATE, 2012-12-03 5:30 PM EST: Continued on Page A2]

QuinStreet and facts regarding credit scores

From: Greg Fisher
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Barbara Marquand, staff writer, QuinStreet
Cc: Doug Valenti, chairman, QuinStreet
Subject: Experian, Fox Business, Quinstreet, VantageScore; employers

Experian linked to an article on the Fox Business website in which you wrote, “VantageScores range from 501 to 990, and the breakdown of excellent to bad credit is similar to the scale used to calculate grades in school — 900 to 990 is excellent; 800 to 899 is good; 700 to 799 is fair; 600 to 699 is poor; and under 600 is failing.”

Who designated that tier as failing? And, at what are those in that tier failing?

Also, you wrote, “Even employers sometimes check credit scores to gauge applicants’ sense of personal responsibility.”

What indicates that employers use credit scores?

—
Greg Fisher
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342

Evidence that Rupert Murdoch is unfit

So, the problem is this: Mass media have repeated this myth so long and so loud that it will never go away. In statehouses, there has even been legislation passed and signed into law by the snookered to outlaw the notion behind the myth– even though the notion is not true. Meanwhile, even as it tries to own up to its errors, the (mis)information machine just keeps on churning, out of control.

The myth is that employers use c—-t s—-s (you almost even don’t want to say the words for fear of fueling the fire).

Employers do not do it. They can’t. They cannot. They can’t even GET c—-t s—-s.

Take the case of Rupert Murdoch, a man who, certainly, has taken his lumps, recently. British legislators even went as far as to declare him “not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.” And, as you can see here, when it comes to the issue about s—-s, he can’t get it right. Its like he’s arguing with himself.

For example, first, one of Murdoch’s anchors–who (NSFW) is a lawyer–does does a whole bit with some guy with the title of Doctor. For some real fun, see Murdoch’s copy change after creditscoring.com’s email: the word s—-s changed to reports (but not before at least one sucker copied it (why the myth will not die)). Got the picture? A doctor and a lawyer (indeed, she reminds us of that right in the video).

Then, just days later, a host on another Murdoch network has credit report and c—-t s—-e expert John Ulzheimer on her show. These two (mere laymen) know the truth and go over the thing again for the umpteenth time: employers do not use [you know what].

How do you get in touch with this guy Murdoch–or Oprah, or the head of NBC? Or, are they just unreachable, out of touch and unfit?

The Ph.D.s are running the asylum

From: Greg Fisher [mailto:greg@creditscoring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:05 PM
To: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D, director, National Institutes of Health (via J. Burklow); Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D, director, National Institutes of Health (via M. Allen); Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D, director, National Institutes of Health (via K. Cravedi)
Cc: Dr. Woody; Dr. Woody (via Tom Estley); Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO, News Corporation (via Julie Henderson); Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO, Fox Business Network, Fox News, News Corporation; Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO, Fox Business Network, Fox News, News Corporation (alt I); Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO, Fox Business Network, Fox News, News Corporation (alt II); Irena Briganti, group SVP, Media Relations, Fox Business Network, Fox News, News Corporation; Brian Lewis, executive vice president, Corporate Communications, Fox Business Network, Fox News, News Corporation; Daniel S. Whitman, assistant professor, Rucks Department of Management, Louisiana State University
Subject: credit score, employers, Fox Business, Act II, NIH

On your website, an abstract for the research publication “An empirical investigation of dispositional antecedents and performance-related outcomes of credit scores” falsely states, “Many organizations use credit scores as an employment screening tool, but little is known about the legitimacy of such practices.”

Employers do not use credit scores. Please stop repeating the inaccurate information.

The authors of the report have not replied. One of them is quoted in a story dated one day ago and published by Rupert Murdoch of Fox Business Network and News Corporation. Murdoch published, “According to the Society for Human Resource Management, 60% of employers check applicants’ credit scores for at least some of their job candidates as part of their hiring process.” Then, the word scores changed to reports.

Poof—it’s just like magic, as if it never happened. However, the piece still states, “It’s not enough that we have to keep up with three different versions that never seem to quite agree, but nowadays we must also be ready to defend our scores during a job interview.”

No, we do not. That is preposterous.

—
Greg Fisher
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342

[previous message]

Credit score misinformation repeated over and over

From: Greg Fisher [mailto:greg@creditscoring.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:48 PM
To: Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO, News Corporation (via Julie Henderson)
Cc: Dr. Woody; Dr. Woody (via Tom Estley)
Subject: credit score, employers, Fox Business, Dr. Woody

You published, “According to the Society for Human Resource Management, 60% of employers check applicants’ credit scores for at least some of their job candidates as part of their hiring process.”

However, SHRM, itself, states, “A credit score is a number that gives a snapshot of a period of time; employers do not see this information.”

And, even you published, “Contrary to popular belief, employers can only see your credit report, not your credit score.”

We’ve been over this, Mr. Murdoch, but you keep publishing the same error. What are you doing to keep from misinforming the public again and what are you doing to clean up your mess on Yahoo!?

—
Greg Fisher
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342

From: Greg Fisher [mailto:greg@creditscoring.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Brian L. Roberts, chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation (via Rudnay address); Linda Carroll, The Body Odd, msnbc.com, Comcast
Cc: Jeremy Berneth, assistant professor, Robert H. & Patricia Hines Professorship in Management, Rucks Department of Management, E. J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University; Shannon G. Taylor, assistant proessor, management, Northern Illinois University; Jack Walker, assistant professor, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech; Daniel S. Whitman, assistant professor, Rucks Department of Management, Louisiana State University; Ashley Berthelot, Media Releations, Louisiana State University; Michael Kesterton, columnist, The Globe and Mail, Thomson; Globe and Mail corrections, Thomson; John V. Lombardi, president, Louisiana State University; Melba J. T. Vasquez, PhD, president, American Psychological Association
Subject: RE: credit score, employers, LSU, mainstream, Comcast NBC

You published, “Employers who use credit scores in their hiring decisions might be weeding out some of the best applicants, a new study… [EMAIL ATTACHMENT]