Posted On: February 24, 2005, 2:48 pm CST

Posted By: Bruce

The issue is that the underlying factors are not readily apparent (or known) based on credit scoring to cause the "correllation to loss". Number of miles driven, years of experience, citation history all tend to be self evident but having a few to many revolving accounts? The mechanism is not understood hence the feeling is that it is not applied correctly and perhaps unfairly. If the carriers believed the drivel they put out on credit scoring why is it on a family basis rather than individually? Why do they exempt good credit scores from getting huge increases when their credit scores drop for what ever reason? Why the battle to the death on this issue: cost. Underwriting staffs have been gutted and with a credit score and MVR the policy issuance is truly automatic. No thinking or experience needed and no wages to pay! The real cost will not be to the consumers (come on what did they do before Fair/Isaac came up with this scam: they seemed to know how to select the perferred drivers and discount plans) but to company overhead! By the way a study (as I recall) once showed a direct correlation to loss based on hair color; being somewhat follically challenged I could be out on a limb here but why not use that too; it seems as statistically vailid as credit scoring!