Finally people are sueing those corrupted ratings companies. They take it upon themselves to just randomly decide whether people should be allowed to get loans having never met the person, and these companies get paid its ridiculous. They are just as big of crooks as insurance companies making you pay money every year just in case somethin happens.
The reports in question here are not personal credit reports. I think that’s what you object to. As far as personal credit reports, how do you expect lenders and others to make decisions? The day of the local one location bank is over. That type of operation is no longer cost effective. Credit reports have to be part of the process. Give us a replacement for them. How are they corrupt?
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.
to add to what Dawn just said, there is evidence that the outcome of the ratings process did not reflect what the raters themselves really thought about the quality of debt they were rating. So the ratings companies cannot say they were just wrong about their rating.
Furthermore, if one were to actually delve into the details of the mortgages that were rated, I doubt very much that the result would be AAA. On the very face of it, a salary of $50k cannot reasonably make the payments on a $500k debt.
Finally people are sueing those corrupted ratings companies. They take it upon themselves to just randomly decide whether people should be allowed to get loans having never met the person, and these companies get paid its ridiculous. They are just as big of crooks as insurance companies making you pay money every year just in case somethin happens.
The reports in question here are not personal credit reports. I think that’s what you object to. As far as personal credit reports, how do you expect lenders and others to make decisions? The day of the local one location bank is over. That type of operation is no longer cost effective. Credit reports have to be part of the process. Give us a replacement for them. How are they corrupt?
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.
to add to what Dawn just said, there is evidence that the outcome of the ratings process did not reflect what the raters themselves really thought about the quality of debt they were rating. So the ratings companies cannot say they were just wrong about their rating.
Furthermore, if one were to actually delve into the details of the mortgages that were rated, I doubt very much that the result would be AAA. On the very face of it, a salary of $50k cannot reasonably make the payments on a $500k debt.