Credit Rating Agencies Fending Off Lawsuits from Subprime Meltdown
National News • July 14, 2008
Battered by critics who blame them for helping to foment the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown, credit raters are now trying to fend off lawsuits -- including fraud claims brought by their own ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: RE: Finally
Posted On: July 15, 2008, 8:22 am CDT
Posted By: Dawn
Comment:
They are corrupt in the sense that they can have false information on them for years.
In the case of identity theft, the charges can stay on your credit for decades, even though you have the proof that you didn't create the charges.
One debt can appear on your report three times if it is sold. Good luck with that one, too.
Pulling the three 'big ones' and comparing the scores proves just how unobjective they are. If you ask which agency is used by whomever you are applying with, you can manipulate your chances. My TU score is 35 pts higher then my Experion. So I only go to places that use TU.
Then, the actual activity that can affect your score is also very subjective. If you transfer a balance from a 11% interest card to a 2.9% interest card, fine. BUT if you cancel the 11% interest card, your score drops. Tell me how cancelling a credit card that is paid as agreed should hurt your score?
But this lawsuit is about the so-called 'experts' giving out-and-out inflated ratings to bad products. I do think they should be held accountable. They hold themselves up as 'experts' and promote themselves as the 'leading authority' (check their advertisements) on rating and the stability of products. They dropped the ball to the tune of billions. If we took a HO policy and replaced it with a company that we didn't research properly and they went under 6 months later, who would be held accountable?
And if the allegations are true that they were paid to do this? Put them in jail. That's fraud.
Subject: RE: RE: Finally
In the case of identity theft, the charges can stay on your credit for decades, even though you have the proof that you didn't create the charges.
One debt can appear on your report three times if it is sold. Good luck with that one, too.
Pulling the three 'big ones' and comparing the scores proves just how unobjective they are. If you ask which agency is used by whomever you are applying with, you can manipulate your chances. My TU score is 35 pts higher then my Experion. So I only go to places that use TU.
Then, the actual activity that can affect your score is also very subjective. If you transfer a balance from a 11% interest card to a 2.9% interest card, fine. BUT if you cancel the 11% interest card, your score drops. Tell me how cancelling a credit card that is paid as agreed should hurt your score?
But this lawsuit is about the so-called 'experts' giving out-and-out inflated ratings to bad products. I do think they should be held accountable. They hold themselves up as 'experts' and promote themselves as the 'leading authority' (check their advertisements) on rating and the stability of products. They dropped the ball to the tune of billions. If we took a HO policy and replaced it with a company that we didn't research properly and they went under 6 months later, who would be held accountable?
And if the allegations are true that they were paid to do this? Put them in jail. That's fraud.