Insurers’ Use of Credit Scores on Agenda on Capitol Hill Today

October 2, 2007

  • October 2, 2007 at 8:26 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If a human had a credit problem their cost of auto insurance would not double with my company. First of all, I think we adjust it annually. Second, it may only go up $30 or $40 per bi-annum. I know different companies apply the credit portion differently, but its hard to believe it doubled. Lastly, like it or not, those with good credit are not at all likely to submit a fraudulent claim for theft, collision or vandalism because they can no longer afford the financed item. Does it ever happen? Sure, but not with the same frequency as happens with those people who are overextended for whatever reason. The market has spoken, and the market wants to pay less. Don’t lambast the innovaters who found a way to satisfy the market by finding a way to lower premiums. If you think it is wrong to make ANY group pay more, regardless of color or culture, then blame yourself. You are probably a portion of the market who screamed for lower rates.

  • October 2, 2007 at 9:17 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So do Latinos.

    They can’t pay their bills.

    They live outside their means.

    Life is just one big, irresponsible circle of poor revolving credit.

    Did that upset you? It did me. But that’s what the report said and that’s what Congress is saying in their investigation. To assume that minorities suffer from insurance companies’ use of credit scores says that minorities as a whole have worse credit scores.

    Where’s the prejudice now?

  • October 2, 2007 at 1:30 am
    Casual Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In my job as a surety underwriter, I look at a dozen or so credit reports from Experian every week.

    I’ve looked and looked and have never found where the ethnicity or race of the applicant is disclosed.

    The reports tell us how much credit has been extended and how timely bills are paid.

    THAT’S the basis of approval or declination. Case closed.

    Oh, how I wish I could run a report on some of the whiners, Maxine Waters in particular! Shut up and pay your bills on time!

  • October 2, 2007 at 1:43 am
    Nebraska says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I used to get my panties in a twist about this subject, but have since calmed down. For one, there have been enough intelligent posters on this site who have explained exactly how it works (and while I may still disagree with it, I don’t feel any of my “rights” have been violated). For the other, I specifically called my auto insurance company and asked if credit was a factor and she said no. Which means, an individual is free to shop for a better rate and find a company that doesn’t use credit scoring as a factor for AUTO insurance.

    Anon – Great post.

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:08 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Soon there wont be ANY companies that dont use credit scoring, so thats BS.

    Also, what is the average credit score of an African American? How come in all these articles that is never mnetioned?

    What is the average score of a white person?

    Compair the 2 and youll have your answer.

    Also, what is the relationship of credit score to income.

    I have a feeling that on average a family of 4 making only 30,000 will usually have a credit score lower than the same family that makes 60,000, or 200,000.

    Its easy to say its all about responcibility, but I have a feeling when you look at all the numbers, it will show that it is easier to maintain a higher score when you have more money.

    Also, white people on average make more money than black people.

    Even the people writing these articles do a complete white wash by not asking for the correct statistics. What a disgrace.

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:22 am
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am an underwriter for an insurance company; I look at a dozen or more complete credit reports (not just scores) every day. I don’t know the race of the applicant, unless I guess based on the name. There is no correlation between credit scores and income – that is obvious by the number of people buying high value homes that have low credit scores. Based on my assumption of some race based on the last name, there doesn’t appear to be a correlation there either. In fact, I bet the majority of “latino” names have a higher score than the Jones, Smiths, and Johnsons. My experience is that the credit score is a function of the individuals failure to responsibly handle his finances, and nothing more. And is it pertinent to writing insurance? Sure it is. If you don’t pay your power bill, you sure as hell aren’t going to pay your insurance premium. Insurance companies should have the same ability to screen their prospective clients as do mortgage companies, banks, etc. or any other business than is offering large amounts of financial security based on the applicants ability (or intent) to pay for it.

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:33 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bob, as an underwriter for an insurance company you know nothing.

    Insurance scoring isnt being used to determine if people pay their insurance bill, its used to determine that a person will have more claims.

    What are they teaching you guys?

    Good thing all underwriting is actually done by a computer now with people like you.

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:43 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, you have no numbers to back up anything you just said. On the other hand, every study has shown that there is a direct correlation between poor credit scores and the greater likelyhood of filing claims. I have reviewed thousands of credit reports over the past 30 years and have never seen race indicated on the report. Back off until you can prove anything you state.

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:45 am
    Casual Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There’s a difference between underwriting surety and underwriting insurance. In the case of surety, the product IS an extension of credit, therefore the applicants’ pay record is valid. However, even back in the ’70s, the personal lines department of the large insurance company I started with recognized the expense added to servicing accounts who cancelled for non-pay more than a couple of times, and that’s when we’d refuse to reinstate. I know it’s been written that there’s a mysterious connection between claims and poor credit report scores, but that’s not my line of business any longer, so I’ll defer to the rest of you. My original point remains that there is NO disclosure of race on credit reports (from Experian and Equifax); maybe TransUnion reports have a special code on theirs…?

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:54 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nobody important, please learn how to read. You are right I dont have any numbers to back up what im saying.

    BECAUSE IN ALL THESE ARTICLES THEY DONT GIVE ANY STATISTICS!!

    How can you make any of these decisions without knowing the average insurance score of the average black man compaired to the average white man??

    Is it that hard to figure out??

    WHY ARE THEY HIDING THIS INFO?

    And how come no one is asking for it!!

    Logically speaking someone who doesnt make a lot of money is more likely to get behind on thier bills. What “responcible” decisions would you be making if you were a single mom making 20,000 a year?

  • October 2, 2007 at 2:58 am
    haha says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    if you are a single mom making $20k a year you werent very RESPONSIBLE to begin with

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:01 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There are no numbers to back up what you want to assert because they don’t exist. There was a study done for this congress that showed that the scores simply aren’t some secret deal insurance companies have. Look into this a little farther before posting paranoid ravings. I’m sure if any numbers ever come out, valid or not, the race baiters in congress who agree with you would jump on them. I think the GAO did the study. Check out their web site before having a further hissy fit.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:02 am
    Casual Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Would it be politically incorrect to respond that, if I was a single mom making $20k a year, the responsible decision I’d make would be to get a tubal ligation…

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:15 am
    Atlanta says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, Im really against creidt scores, sometimes people no matter how prudent suffer hard times. I have seen premiums double on persons with bad credit score and it is hard for them finanancially when they are already strugling.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:20 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike wrote ‘Also, what is the average credit score of an African American? How come in all these articles that is never mentioned?’

    ‘What is the average score of a white person?’

    Hey Mike – There hasnt been a question on any insurance application that I know of since the 1950’s that asked a persons race.

    Mike also wrote ‘also, white people on average make more money than black people.’

    It might be fairer to say that ‘the average white household has a higher income than the average black household’.

    I think thats because 70% of black children are born to single parent households in America. The number for white households is 25%. The urban league a few years ago reported the disparity in household incomes, splashed all over newspapers everywhere in America.
    Too bad they didn’t give the why of it – too many single parent households for black children.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:22 am
    Cap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The whole credit score relating to insurance rate “debate” is mostly a bunch of can’t-be-bothered-with-the-facts legislators pandering to people who don’t understand what insurance is for and how it works.

    I’m guessing most of the folks reading this site are in the insurance biz somehow. Ask yourself: How many times have you gotten into a discussion with someone who thinks that insurance is just a big scam perpetrated by greedy rich people and the corporations that they run? Politicos know this and they think the big, mean insurance companies are an easy target.

    Another problem comes with the fact that insurance companies, by their very nature, discriminate against certain people – they try to discriminate against people who will cost the company a lot of money. It’s been shown repeatedly that low insurance scores = more losses

    Assuming it’s true that ethnic minorities make up a larger percentage of people with poor credit scores (which I’ve never actually seen any data on), then the group insurance companies will discriminate against will in fact be minorities. Why is this legal? Because they’re not using race as a factor. Even though the result may be that minorities are discriminated against, this is not in itself illegal since the reasoning behind it is both actuarially sound and racially unmotivated.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:23 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nobody important, why don’t the numbers exist?

    Why hasn’t a study been ordered to locate the data.

    They can get every other piece of information on a person….

    You really are an imbecile. And yes there could very well be a lot of distrust of these large beurocratic organizations on my part. For good reason too.

    To think that there are people out there like you who just put their head in the sand and say “Well the big corporations said that the statistics just aren’t available. So id better believe them and do what they say”

    People like you are precisely what is wrong with this country. You should not be allowed to vote.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:25 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well said Cap. Insurance is discriminatory by nature. Not in an illegal or immoral way, just by trying to charge the proper rate for the exposure or not to write the exposures that are more than the company wants to assume. Discrimination in that way is appropriate. I have never been able to determine race from an insurance application either.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:28 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Who has their head in the sand. I just told you the GAO has done a study and you are too wrapped up in hate to even look. I know what the numbers say from my end of the business. The numbers are correct and justified. It’s up to you to prove otherwise. Every study done independent of the big, evil insurance companies shows non-discrimination. You want to assume we are guilty until proven innocent. Not in this country idiot!

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:33 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    the insurance industry. Credit scoring began as a competitive tool to bring down the cost of insurance for those least likely to have a claim. I think Nationwide started it a while back, then other carriers adopted their own methods to try to develope more competitive rate structures BECAUSE MIKE, CONSUMERS WANT LOWER PRICES FOR INSURANCE!!!! You must have your head in the sand if you do not understand what people ask about when they call for a rate quote. They don’t ask about claim settlement provisions, aftermarket parts, financial stability or is this my real hair. They ask about cost. Hate to burst your bubble but your fellow citizens are more cost conscious than you Mike. I say that because I am sure you are one of the rare few who do ask those questions when you are shopping for insurance. I am sure you are one of those who enjoy paying more because of the principal of the whole stinking thing. Just out of curiosity, when was the last time anyone asked your race on any application for anything? It would have to be a government form. The rest of us have moved beyond race.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:53 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Actually what the hell does this have to do with an insurance application?

    We are talking about insurance scores, which are largely based on credit
    scores.

    And YES little naive children, the credit agency does know your race.

    Oh and one more thing, you just admitted that credit scoring is
    discriminatory, so thank you.

    One more thing, I AM NOT AGAINST CREDIT SCORING. Lets just be honest about
    the fact that it does hurt poor people and minorities disproportionately.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:55 am
    Cap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just ignore Mike.

    He obviously doesn’t understand insurance, neither the theory nor the practice. His spelling is atrocious and his grammar is worse. He slings around personal insults as if they somehow amount to valid arguments. And to top it all off he thinks people who don’t agree with him “shouldn’t be allowed to vote”.

    The only thing I’m surprised about is that he’s capable of using a computer.

  • October 2, 2007 at 3:58 am
    Doug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ha Ha

    Mike got pwnt.

  • October 2, 2007 at 4:03 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What words are spelled wrong? Mr smart guy pressing spell checker, wow what a skill!!!

    Too bad you cant mount an attack based on the substance of what ive said. You can always tell when youve outwitted someone and all they can comment on is spelling.

    Sounds to me like that is what you are best at, pressing a stupid spell check button.

  • October 2, 2007 at 4:17 am
    Cap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ha, see now I’m going to ignore my own advice. Let’s try this:

    “And YES little naive children, the credit agency does know your race.”
    -Who cares if they know it? They’re legally obligated not to reveal it. So it doesn’t matter.

    “You really are an imbecile. And yes there could very well be a lot of distrust of these large beurocratic organizations on my part. For good reason too.”
    -So you’re saying that you have some sort of undefined “good reason” to distrust them there large BUREAUcratic organizations. What that reason is, we’re not really sure, but surely people who make money can’t be honest? You corporation-haters are all the same.

    “Logically speaking someone who doesnt make a lot of money is more likely to get behind on thier bills. What “responcible” decisions would you be making if you were a single mom making 20,000 a year?”
    -No, that’s not logical. $20k per year qualifies a single mother for enough assistance from the government (which is NOT reflected on credit scores) that she should be able to afford housing, food, clothing and transportation.

    Poor insurance scores happen when said mother, (or her cousin who makes $100k per year), purchases things on credit then fails to pay on time. Yes, yes, there are anecdotal cases where this is not true, but in a large-group scenario, it’s statistically irrelevant.

    Oh, and I don’t have to use spellcheck. Poor spelling is just a sign of low intelligence. It does add a certain “flair” to your incoherent ranting though – don’t feel like you have to type what you want into Word, use the spell checker, then copy-and-paste just to make ME happy.

  • October 2, 2007 at 4:19 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, you have stated no facts and as a matter of fact, started the insults. Read a dictionary, discrimination is not inherently illegal. It’s a matter of any decision you make. As one poster stated, you have no knowledge of a very technical industry that does a huge amount of good in this country. Your moronic insults and lack of any factual basis is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Find a fact and quote it. Make one up since there are none to support your position. In the meantime, leave this site and discussion to adults.

  • October 2, 2007 at 4:25 am
    gill fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    business. My clients don’t want to pay more for those who don’t take care of business, WHATEVER COLOR THEY ARE. I just
    called my favorite auto underwriter and asked her ‘is there any way we as an insurance entity can determine a persons race from their auto application or credit info?’. Her response was that we
    see a four digit number from choicepoint, and its not a question on our app. So we don’t see it. She acknowledged that other companies may get that from choicepoint, but we don’t. We ask married or nonmarried, but thats about as intrusive as we get.

  • October 2, 2007 at 5:55 am
    wonderwhy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I had an 800 credit score. I took a risk and had to file for bankruptcy. Now I have a 540. My insurance has doubled. All I did was try to live the American Dream. My driving habits haven’t changed. I haven’t tried to kill myself. Why am I being ripped off for trying to be successful?

  • October 2, 2007 at 6:31 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This barely deserves a response. Do you pay higher interest on credit or even get credit now? Can you buy a car or a house at a good rate or at all? Statistics show that people with poor credit scores file more claims. You took a chance and lost in a lot of ways.

  • October 3, 2007 at 7:47 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Most states have legislation that prevents the negative impact based on credit scores at renewal.

    I’m not a monster and I understand that people do fall on bad times (been there myself a few times) but in most states that’s not going to affect renewal premium – only new business.

    Just like any product you pick when you’re going to shop. If you’ve fallen on bad times and your credit score has been affected just pay the renewal premium and wait until you get back on your feet before you start shopping around again.

  • October 3, 2007 at 8:00 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is discrimination, but we call it segmentation. The insurnace industry has always discriminated (segmented).

    If you’re a male, you pay more than a female with exactly the same other demographics.

    If you’re 18-years old, you pay more than a 38-year old with exactle the same other demographics.

    If you drive a Porche, you pay more than someone driving a AMC Gremlin assuming everything else is the same.

    If you have 20 speeding tickets you pay more than someone with a clean driving record assuming everything else is the same.

    If you live in a major city with a ton of accidents, high theft rate, and rapant with fraud you pay more than someone living in Mayberry.

    *NONE* of those things are based on race, they’re based on market segmentation and predictors of loss. The same as credit scoring. How does a credit agency know my race? They don’t (unless maybe if my name is Sha’Laquinta or something). I’ve never been asked my race on a credit application.

    It’s unfortunate that (whoever it was)’s insurnace went up after filing a claim. It’s not a perfect system and there will always be the “one-off’s” here and there. I have a poor credit score myself and haven’t had an accident in 15 years. I know I pay more for my insurance because of credit but I also understand that the law of large numbers dictates that if you take 10000 people with my credit score, we’re more likely to have an accident regardless of how good a driver I am.

  • October 3, 2007 at 8:06 am
    Mike^2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike,

    You truly are a moron. Do you understand how insurance works? Why do boys pay more than girls? Are you not discriminating against boys? I can’t change the fact I am male. I can, however, be smart and responsible w/ my meager salary. I pay my bills on time, drive a low low low end car, live in a tiny house and shop at ALDI to put food in my 5 kid’s mouths. I do all this on around $35,000 a year. My kids and I don’t wear designer clothes and we only have a few nice items. Guess what, I’m in the best tier w/ my insurer. And you know what; this really helps me because I save a TON of money on insurance. What is my ethnicity??? Does it matter??? I do think that in general some groups of the populous have no idea how to be responsible with their income. They use it to buy trinkets and bobbles instead of what is needed to get by in life.

    I think Mike works for the IRS. Like the IRS can’t show the law requiring me or you to pay taxes Mike can’t show that there is one shred of evidence where ethnicity matters. As the IRS has hired goons to point guns, kick down doors and fraudulently put liens on property, Mike has the ability to insult and harass.

    We need a Bud Light Commercial for Mike…he’s a true man of insurance genius.

    ~Another Mike

  • October 3, 2007 at 8:34 am
    Miss Fair says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m glad to see all the comments on this issue. It is worth taking a closer look at. I think it discriminates against the poor. I know a couple of single moms that are working full time &/or 2 jobs to make ends meet and they still have touble some months paying bills on time. The extra 10 or 15 days they get from Cancellation notices helps. But then they get penalized for it. They are the ones who have to pay the higher rates. It is like the old saying “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
    Poor comes in all colors and nationalities.

  • October 3, 2007 at 9:11 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Based on some of the comments its clear that people aren’t really reading what im saying. I never said I was against insurance scoring.

    I just said that we should at least be honest about what’s going on here, and that is that insurance scoring does adversely affect minorities and poor people.

    Whether that’s ok or not is completely up to your own moral barometer. If you are ok with that then that’s great, just don’t try to hide behind the fact that you are more responsible and you work harder than poor people and black people, so you deserve a better rate, because that is ignorant racist bullshiz.

    I also love the fact that you people actually believe that these large intelligent money making machines known as corporations don’t know the average insurance score of a person making 20,000 as compared to someone making 120,000.

    Also, if you think they don’t know your race that’s fine. But once we show that insurance scoring adversely affects the poor, we can then cite statistics that show there are more poor blacks in the US than whites. That can be statistically proven.

    OK folks, have at it ,now come back and defend the ruthless corporations and their tax breaks and all the other great things they do for you. I have no idea why you people are so in love with corporations.

    If you are on this list, most of you are just a bunch of 9 to 5ers of the middle class that are too stupid to realize they are getting railroaded by the upper class.

    You do their bidding for them. They have out smarted you. Its sad.

  • October 3, 2007 at 9:27 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Actually, check your statistics.

    There are more whites below the poverty line (the last census results I saw) than blacks. Now, there’s a higher PERCENTAGE of blacks below the poverty line but a great deal of that has to do with the propencity toward single parent households (or second generation households where mommy isn’t responsible enough for auntie or gran-mama does the child raising).

    Instead of commenting or debating the percentages of poor minorities maybe we should actually look at what CAUSES those higher percentages within certain ethnic groups.

    Asians/Pacific Islanders are a smaller minority than any other group (except “Native Americans”) but have one of the lowest levels of poverty. What causes that?

    Maybe instead of complaining how unfair to blacks and latinos credit scoring is we should look at what is causing that to be the case.

  • October 3, 2007 at 9:49 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, big, evil insurance companies do not collect the information you suspect. Get some treatment for your paranoia. We don’t ask for this information and have no way of gathering it. Congress wants to have a study done demanding information on race and income that simply doesn’t exist on our books. You say that they do have the information. How do they and how do you “know” they have it. Don’t speak in terms of they must you know they do. Give some specifics where you have fact, not speculation. If you have some fine, but stop with the “you know they are bad” garbage without information. I’m really tired of people slandering my industry based on false accusations.

  • October 3, 2007 at 10:24 am
    Cap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To quote Algore…..

    Insurance/Credit scoring points to an “inconvenient truth”: Free-market capitalism creates winners and losers.

    It’s just like that guy said: “I took a risk and had to file bankruptcy.” He happened to be one of capitalism’s losers, at least for that particular venture. The great part is, he has the opportunity to pick up the pieces and give it another go – and nearly every successful person who didn’t inherit their money has had at least one major setback.

    Am I wrong to say that those living “below the poverty line” in the US includes people who can afford air conditioning, a vehicle and cable television? Even the losers are winners here. Civilizations based on free-market capitalism are the first in history where the poor people are frequently the fattest among us.

    Yeah, it’s unfair if your definition of fairness is that everyone gets the same thing. But it’s very fair if your definition is that everyone gets the same chance.

  • October 3, 2007 at 10:39 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So Cap, if you were a black kid in NYC with 2 brothers one mother no money, lead paint poisoning and a 100 IQ, how do you like your chances?

    Your argument is ignorant selfish and racist. Stop wasting my time with your Republican propaganda.

    Why do you want to charge poor people more money for car insurance? Whats the logic? Dont they have it hard enough?

  • October 3, 2007 at 11:28 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, your views and arguements are nonsense. I personally will no longer read or respond to your racist and inflamatory statements. I don’t know where you developed your views, but you need to grow up.

  • October 3, 2007 at 11:41 am
    Casual Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tragically, Mike is a Marxist, that is, “From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.” With his lead poisoning and 100 IQ, he’s happy to take from others the results of their labor. Well, that’s not how it works in private enterprise where entities base rates on experience while they’re providing employment to vast numbers of citizens. I’d suggest the person in this situation drive a beater car with legal liability limits while they attend a training program that’ll enable them to take advantage of the American Dream. Think it can’t be done? Read Justice Clarence Thomas’ new book.

  • October 3, 2007 at 12:15 pm
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, I’m not charging the poor more for insurance… that’s why I’m pulling credit, not W2s. I’m segmenting my business and charging appropriately for the risk posed by a particular exposure using data that has been proven time and time again to be a valid predictor of loss when using the law of large numbers.

    Apparently you’re of a belief that insurance (and probably everything) should exist in a version of Harrison Bergeron where everyone is equal – and if they’re not they’ll be made equal. Happily, that’s not how the world works.

    Insurance isn’t priced by how much someone suffers. It’s a product priced according to esposure of peril and the chances that the company will pay out on the contract. Where else are you going to get $100k for a $1000 investment (unless you’re Hillary Clinton).

    Figure out why people with poor credit scores are more likely to have an accident, then work to make them not do whatever it is they do.

  • October 3, 2007 at 12:54 pm
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike wrote ‘Why do you want to charge poor people more money for car insurance? Whats the logic? Dont they have it hard enough?’

    Why? Well, Mike, I doubt thats what anybody as an individual wants to do. But
    as I have explained, you Mike have complained about the high cost of insurance so the industry developed a way to break down the cost so those who use it the most pay the most. Are you really surprised that those people who struggle with credit would file more claims than those who don’t?

    What’s the logic? Again, for the umpteenth time, the logic is that data proves that those with bad credit file more claims, regardless of color (remember lead contaminated Mike, color is not a question on an insurance application?).

    Don’t they have it hard enough? Hard enough for what, Mike? How can anyone living here EVER describe life in the United States as hard? Because their car insurance costs too much? Where I live, complete with public transportation that I pay for but don’t use, about half the drivers don’t even bother to get insurance. They can afford the car, the gas, the maintenance presumably, but not the state required minimum liability insurance. They are making a choice which costs all of us who do honor the law. Just think Mike how so many things would improve if half the cars were off the road, if those folks rode the bus I now provide for them. Less Gorebal warming, right? Less roads. Lower cost of automobiles. And less insurance means lower cost Mike, because of fewer claims and fewer insurance clients.

    I cannot believe someone admits they screwed up on a bad idea and then complains about the fallout. Of course, I should believe it. We are in the age of ‘Blaming others for the stupid mistakes we brought on ourselves’. Kind of like thinking your covered for flood when you’re not. Sadly, about half our populace treats everyday, routine daily problems like you Mike. They blame their problem on someone else.

  • October 3, 2007 at 1:39 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You said: Where else are you going to get $100k for a $1000 investment (unless you’re Hillary Clinton).

    See, its stupid partisan junk like that that makes you look like such an azz. Like George Bush never had any shady deals? Now I know what an azz im dealing with.

    You cant listen, you can only see things your way.

    And if insurance were truly fair, then how come my insurance premiums are also spent on re-building/ subsidizing houses for rich people that build in the path of hurricanes?

    Oh and one more thing, why don’t you join up and fight in Iraq if you really believe in this Republican crap you chicken punk?

  • October 3, 2007 at 1:42 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Oh Mike, all your posts have been drivel and exeptional pedestrian but this post is extremely laughable. You have now shown your true colors and you are nothing but an ignorant, race baiter. Leave this country if you hate it so much.

  • October 3, 2007 at 1:48 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I was waiting for that one Mary. Thats always the most uneducated thing you can say. Dont complain about the country, leave the country if you hate it. It shows such a lack of historical knowledge. Thomas Jefferson would smack a woman in the face for saying something so stupid.

    Just like all the black people should leave right? And how do you supose they do that without any money missy?

    You are a stupid fool. This country was founded on freedom of speech, not telling people to leave the country.

    Instead im gonna stay right here and fight for waht is right, and destroy people like you who get in my path.

    I have a feeling I will be prospering in this country for many years while you send your kids to get killed in a useless war in Iraq or Iran.

  • October 3, 2007 at 1:57 am
    Abe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just to bring things back on track, I think Mikes original point was that it seems like poor people have low insurance scores more often than not. At least the poor people that come in to my office seem to.

    So why if everyone jumping on Mike? Is there some statistic out there that says that poor people have better scores than rich people? I havnt seen it, could you send me the link?

    Thats all this whole discussion is about, right?

  • October 3, 2007 at 1:59 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    i’m genuinely asking this as a serious question.

    let’s say for example, i come on board with a new insurance agency who (for arguments sake) allows 15% of my premium to be determined by my credit score (and again, we’ll say I have a very low credit score of 625 for arguments sake).

    isn’t your policy reviewed everytime you renew it? As time goes by and I’ve filed no claims, wouldn’t that rate start to come down?

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:02 am
    phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Your credit score is reviewed usually at every renewal. If the score is the same, no further discount is given. I know many companies give you a discount for the length of time you have been with them. If you still have the lifestyle that has a bad credit score, then I doubt you have changed you chances of a loss just because you have been with a company awhile.

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:04 am
    steve says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why pick on Mike? Other than the fact that he is stupid, doesn’t understand one thing about the insurance industry and that his posts are complete nonsense? Take your pick Abe…

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:07 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why sould I leave this country, I love it and make plenty of money. Oh and I am black. Sorry Mikey, but you will never be able to convince anyone to agree with your marxism or socialistic ideals, certainly not in america. I say leave this country because you obviously hate it. I am a smart as well, no kids.

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:09 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    isn’t that what the pilgrims did?

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:16 am
    phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Another comment I forgot to mention. Here is a scenerio regarding the payment of a claim. Who would be more likely to commit fraud? If there was a fire on a home, normally someone under financial duress might be more likely to give false info. They could say they had all types of things to get money to pay off debt, etc. Someone that might be financially stable with a good credit score has no need to commit fraud. It might show that they would file more claims, but also the claim payout might be higher for someone with a lower credit score.

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:21 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Phil – thanks for the information. I understand what you are saying.

    Shouldn’t the insurance agent have a list of items in someone’s household in the event of a fire (or some event that would destroy the home)? I see what you are saying, that someone would try to make money off of a situation like that, but isn’t it the job of the insurance agent to get a list of items? I know when I signed up with “insurance company A”, they made me sit and list out how much value i had in different categories (i.e. jewelry, audio equipment, etc…). but when i switched to “insurance company B”, i was never asked, just handed my policy. (and personally, i have bad credit, but would not try to make money off my insurance because i fear jail.)

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:39 am
    Saints Fan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Your post pretty much explains any questions I had, Miss B. You hate kids and the people who make them, the underdog and last but definitely not least any other Blacks who at least ask some questions though we may not all agree with but would rather ask than stay quiet. If you’re married I would be surprised because you are a handful in your postings alone.

    As a “minority” myself (I put like that because statistically, actuarially etc there are more people of color in the world..), I have to say that I benefit from being with Libery Mutual for at least ten years and last year my premium went down $250. I also live in the south if that has anything to do with it but I have full coverage on two vehicles and a $1,000 deducible. That’s what helps keep your premium low too. That’s also why you pray that you don’t have an accident and remind your spouse and kids that if they make one dumb behind mistake (i.e. an accident), you ain’t payin’ one more dime and someone else will take over the insurance payments because I am not paying for other folks stupidity.

    What helps me as former college big spender is to make sure that my insurance payments are taken directly out of my account and this has helped for ten years. I know if you are poor then insurance is secondary to putting food on the table but I have helped women in shelters and in section 8 housing and I have seen the stats are also have and have nots with this group. Some do spend money on things they don’t need (i.e. big screens) and food stamps out the wazoo and so do alot of people that are living good one day and bam – here comes layoffs and plant closings. The other half don’t know how the system works or as some do – “work the system”. Insurance is really the LAST thing on their mind.

    Call it ignorance or whatever but personally I don’t like the use of credit scores but I agree with some posters that like anything else – credit cards, mortgages you HAVE to shop around. Companies do it all the time when applying for property, casualty insurance and that’s why we have cancel/rewrites in this business. Cancel it and then move on to the next company. There is always a company that is willing to lowball another in order to get business. Someone always has to meet a quota. I just happen to like where I’m at and yes my credit score has gone down too due to spouse losing their job but the discount has helped tremendously and also making sure we do not get into any preventable accidents.

    Also, as we are all Americans on this posting no one has stated what to do about illegals and how the stats figures in native-born Hispanics or were illegal immigrants also cited in the study. One thing wrong is making sure every pays for insurance. If you can’t a license then you shouldn’t be driving in the first place and raising the rates on other law-abiding citizens. Also are drunk drivers actually being forced to pay higher premiums? Is this being enforced by insurance companies or are the rest of us paying still for this group? If you’re poor, you’re poor but as an alcoholic you have no excuse not to share the load.

    There are MANY variables and if people want to be racist in their comments fine. You’re just a sorry person anyway but as statistics bear out what is true then I agree that education is needed and people need to indiidually and collectively have as much an equal playing field as possible. Since India has become a hot bed of insurance activity and China and they have a huge poor population then someone tell me why insurance can made affordable for them and not for Americans of any race or socio-economic class.

  • October 3, 2007 at 3:44 am
    Phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think most companies no longer require anything. Now they have you list items after a claim. I have no idea how this could be done. I would forget 50% of everything I own. Of course anyone could put false info on a claim. That depends on your character also. People with a lower credit score might have more to gain?

  • October 3, 2007 at 4:08 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I see where you are coming from, but I think that’s a moral judgement more than something underwriting can determine. Who is to say what would motivate someone to lie on a claim to get more than they had to begin with? I think that’s more of an “entitlement” mentality, which seems to be possesed by everyone these days. I have no facts nor statistics to prove my point, but i bet a lot of people would claim more just to get that 52″ screen tv. maybe someone who is near retirement, has never filed a claim has good credit, etc….sees their house go up in smoke and thinks, “ah heck, i’ve paid my premiums for years and never had to use it, why not claim more than what I had just so I have a little extra pocket money?” to me, credit has nothing to do with dishonesty and likelyhood to steal.

    but, i appreciate the conversation!

  • October 3, 2007 at 4:24 am
    phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That is true, many people think that just because they pay premium any claim is valid. I have dealt many times with claims that are excluded in a contract, and someone thinks that it should still be covered as they pay their insurance. I think instead of such an issue of using credit rating on someone and trying to figure what their individual risk might be, the focus should look at this problem.

    A majority of people pay less for their insurance with credit scoring than without. Only the bottom tier would pay more than they would. I don’t feel the need so subsidize someone else’s high risk. So people that complain about it, and want it gone will also pay higher premium at that time. Maybe the focus should be on some type of better way to handle claims to reduce fraud. We pay a huge percentage of premium due to fraud, maybe 30-40%. Maybe as you stated before we should have to list expensive items. Maybe photographs of anything that might be valued over $1000.

  • October 3, 2007 at 4:40 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think that’s a good place to start, having folks take pictures to be onfile…(but you know that MANY people would complain about that, too.)

  • October 4, 2007 at 7:50 am
    NO BRAIN POWER says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    People with a lower credit score might have more to gain? O my God . YOU work hard for your 8$$$ a hour but your are not good??? So Big Ins can make you pay more. Boy O boy… this is AmercaN.

  • October 4, 2007 at 8:40 am
    phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If they are having financial problems they do have more to gain from a fraud claim. Why would someone risk jail time if they have enough money to pay their bills? For that person, that is having problems, they might think fraud is more worth the risk. I am not saying you should pay more for this. It is one small fraction of a reason why they use credit scoring.

    Of course there are people that have a low credit score that won’t do this. I am just guessing, that the less money problems someone has, the less likely they would try to steal money from an insurance company.

    I do feel bad for people that are just getting by. That doesn’t mean that they have a low credit score though. Your remark about $8 an hour? I know people that are top tier credit that make that much. They are just responsible, and their insurance premium credits them for that. There are also people that make $500k per year that have a low score. They don’t get credit for how much they make.

    How american is it to take ownership for your own problems? Not very.ability to take care of your financial matters.

  • October 4, 2007 at 8:58 am
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Our company has been looking at using predictive analysis, and yes with credit scores, for pricing decisions. What I found was that using these, we could re-evaluate our book to get a better price for renewal, thereby increasing retention rates AND it would allow us to find more pricing point for many risks which we would normally reject. I specifically asked whether this would increase or decrease our rejections and was told that we would be able to take on more business in our voluntary market and reduce our residual market cessions (we often cede these accounts to the resdiual market but can make a small percentage for administration). So in this sense, those with better scores benefit from a lower price and those with not so good scores can be priced in our voluntary program, which will not as cheap as the better scored accounts, will be a lower premium than the residual market. Credit scoring actually would benefit those with marginal credit scores…

  • October 4, 2007 at 9:00 am
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’re not, you are paying the price for your decisions. You just didn’t realize what the full impact would be for failure….

  • October 4, 2007 at 9:07 am
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is a word that has become so loaded with negative connotation that we forget what it really means. To discriminate just means to discern a difference, whether it is in choice of food, cars, behavior. We could use another word but I don’t think that’s necessary. The question is whether there is a sound basis for making a distinction between rating points and classification of risk. That is not only acceptable but is the standard practice. Without using any criteria, we end up penalizing those on the other side of the credit score curve. Of course, no one would even think to be concerned whether the well-to-do would subsidize those less well off, would they? Who would feel sorry if the rich have to pay more in taxes, let along insurance? and if they would lobby, we’d call it influence peddling, right? Those with the loudest, shrillest voices will skew a good idea into the dirt….

  • October 4, 2007 at 11:17 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Generally speaking most people think it is unethical to discriminate based on race creed or color. Some people also believe it is wrong to discriminate against the poor and needy.

    Its called compassion. Some people are stupid and lazy, but I will still offer them help because that’s the type of person I am, and that’s the type of world I want to live in.

    That’s really all it comes down to. Do unto others. Don’t judge. Have a heart.

  • October 4, 2007 at 12:46 pm
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks for the back handed compliment and personal attacks Saints Fan. Thanks for showing your true colors as well. At least I can go to sleep at night knowing I am better off than you, a better person than you and extremely smarter than you. Again thanks.

    Oh — can you point out where I stated (not implied) that I hated kids, their people that produce children and other Blacks?

  • October 5, 2007 at 2:41 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Conservatives Are Such Jokers

    In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.

    Skip to next paragraph

    Paul Krugman.

    The Conscience of a Liberal
    Share Your Comments About This Column
    Paul Krugman takes readers’ questions about economics and international finance.

    Go to Columnist Page » But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world’s richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here’s what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” which made him a national political figure: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”

    Today’s leading conservatives are Reagan’s heirs. If you’re poor, if you don’t have health insurance, if you’re sick — well, they don’t think it’s a serious issue. In fact, they think it’s funny.

    On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage.

    In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh.

    Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem.

    “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said Mr. Bush in July. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

    And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending — which fails to reach many children — he declared that “when they say, well, poor children aren’t being covered in America, if that’s what you’re hearing on your TV screens, I’m telling you there’s $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that.”

    It’s not just the poor who find their travails belittled and mocked. The sick receive the same treatment.

    Before the last election, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s and has become an advocate for stem cell research that might lead to a cure, made an ad in support of Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. It was an effective ad, in part because Mr. Fox’s affliction was obvious.

    And Rush Limbaugh — displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber — immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. “In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it’s purely an act.” Heh-heh-heh.

    Of course, minimizing and mocking the suffering of others is a natural strategy for political figures who advocate lower taxes on the rich and less help for the poor and unlucky. But I believe that the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned.

    Mark Crispin Miller, the author of “The Bush Dyslexicon,” once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family,” and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

    By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that’s when he’s speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared “zero tolerance of people breaking the law,” even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren’t getting from his administration.

    What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples’ woes, you fit right in.

    And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn “socialism,” which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

    So once again, if you’re poor or you’re sick or you don’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.

  • October 5, 2007 at 3:39 am
    gill fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    1) what’s childrens health insurance have to do with credit scoring.

    2) Let me get this straight – you want to abolish private health insurance, which serves 85% of the population, with all the jobs in the private sector including benefits supporting that, to go to socialized health care that is 100% government run. I know , you won’t be happy Mike until 100% of the people are happy 100% of the time. Why don’t you raise the same hue and cry for those kids because their dads abandoned them. That it the predominate common factor among them. Oh, that might make the dad, the mom or the kids experience low self esteem. Can’t do that.

  • October 7, 2007 at 1:25 am
    gary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Lots of insurance agents will be following this as well. I think the statistics insurers believe is that those with better credit overall do make better clients. They typically have better vehicles and drive more conservatively, more defensively. They typically carry higher deductibles. They typically pay bills on time. They typically carry higher limits of coverage. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but the law of large numbers probably does bear these out. Is it right? That is what Congress will determine.

    http://www.grandcanyonquotes.com

  • October 7, 2007 at 1:41 am
    Gary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why do democrats like Mike always assume conservatives hate doing good for poor people. My family survived on welfare for part of my childhood. I understand its need and purpose all too well. We were poor and that was the life we had. The mistake people like Mike make is listening to certain political leaders who are trying to score political points and win elections. Saying something during an election does not make it a fact. What is true is this – most convervatives simply want to ensure our government is operating on a fiscally sound basis. Now, that flies in face of the most recent Republican Congressional leadership, who disappointed everyone with their lack of fiscal responsibility. Democrats are probably the most generous people around. The problem is, money does not grow on trees and you cannot spend unlimited money on every single project that you feel like. At some point the U.S. will not be able to sustain the free spending. We will pay for it some day. That is what disappointed me about the most recent Republican group. They also did not seem to understand that fact.

  • October 9, 2007 at 10:33 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike never said he was a democrat, he just said he was a liberal not a democrat, they are not the same thing./

    Democrats suck just like Republicans do.

    Republicrats as we like to call them

  • October 9, 2007 at 10:34 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Watt does not care about his constituents, or any American citizen’s wellbeing. A recent exchange of letters about the institution of Sharia (Islamic law) in the US went like this:

    To the Honorable Representative of the State of North Carolina:

    In order to assure the protection of the American People and the preservation of our Constitution, I think at this point in American history it would be a good idea to introduce legislation like the following:

    “In no instance shall the practice of Islamic Sharia law be established or permitted within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.”

    Thank you.

    Watt sent back this response, dated September 14, 2007:

    Thank you for your email about the establishment and practice of Islamic Sharia law in the United States.
    The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles. Therefore, I believe that the language proposed in your email would be unconstitutional and I would not support it.

    I appreciate your input on this issue. If I or my staff can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Sincerely,
    Melvin L. Watt

    Sharia law mandates stoning adulterers, chopping off theives’ hands, that non-muslims pay tribute money to muslims, that a female rape victim must bring four male witnesses to support her in court, that a child under nine can be married off to an adult male, and so on.

    So, these hearings amount to nothing but politically expedient grandstanding. This man is an ignoramus and a threat to the republic.

  • October 9, 2007 at 12:13 pm
    Ron Meyer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One of my insured’s was notified she was paying higher auto premiums due to her credit score. In checking, we found the credit score was worse due to too many credit cards in existance. Her total balance was less than $200. Had never paid any late. She had $50,000 in the bank, house was paid for, had one small child, and she had a good job. Driv Lic. and Clue were clean.

  • October 10, 2007 at 4:28 am
    Shrinivas S says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ?

  • October 10, 2007 at 7:38 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let’s have no underwriting criteria, because, after all, everyone is nice and deserves coverage. What gives underwriters the right to judge anyone anyhow?

  • October 12, 2007 at 10:31 am
    Underwriter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’ve posted many a time on the subject, yet somehow I always come back for more. I’d like to avoid the name-calling and just stick to simple facts.

    I’m an underwriting manager for a major carrier; we’ve been using credit for a number of years, like many carriers, and I’ve seen both positive and negative ramifications from the use of credit, so I’ll present both sides.

    The good – credit scores are a number, which means they’re unbiased. Everyone goes through the same credit “formula” and a number pops out the other side. Underwriters don’t have “bias” information, like race, religion, sexual orientation, or income.

    What underwriters do have is a set of facts about each customer – the type of car, where it’s garaged, driving record, education, occupation, and a score. Each of these has been statistically validated to segment the population. For some reason, men have more accidents than women (especially young men). Homeowners have fewer claims. People with a bachelor’s degree (or higher) file fewer claims. Folks with higher-than-average credit scores file fewer claims. Folks who have multiple driving violations are more likely to file claims.

    When taken alone, only prior driving violations are substantially statistically valid. The other factors are all other differentiators that companies use to splice and dice risks. Credit is only one of many factors companies look at, and it isn’t the heaviest weighted factor. Insurance carriers have to make “groups” of people to apply rates. They group like risks together and assign a price to that risk.

    Let’s take an example and run through the permutations – a married couple with a young driver.

    The married couple owns a home, hubby graduated from college, the young driver is a good student, they drive responsible cars (an Accord, a Civic, and a Sienna minivan), have clean driving records, make $50,000 a year as a household income but are fiscally responsible. These folks will get a great rate.

    Let’s say they rent instead of own a home, or have a lower credit score, or have a ticket, or hubby only has a high school diploma – all still pretty good rates.

    Where you’ll see premiums really starting to increase is when there are multiple negative factors: for example, a lower credit score, renters instead of homeowners, low limits, and three tickets.

    The good news, though, is how many carriers handle credit. The company I work for evaluates credit at every single renewal, but will always use the highest score we’ve every pulled. This means if you have a 700 in 2006, get a divorce in 2007 and your score goes to 200, we still rate you with the 700 score. The even better news is that if you start out with a 200 but improve it to a 700, we’ll use that and your rates will go down. Every company handles credit differently. If you have great credit, find a company that’s very strict about credit rating – you’ll get the best possible premium. If you have poor credit, find a carrier that doesn’t use credit (usually smaller/regional carriers). Your rates will ultimately go up because they will be artificially selected against since they can’t splice risks as carefully, but you’ll benefit until you can get your score up.

    Now for the bad – There are a lot of folks out there, who through no fault of their own, have poor credit; any number of tragedies cause folks to run up debt, skip payments, or open lines of credit to keep their heads above water. It’s unfortunate for them because they’ll be penalized. Is it fair? Probably not.

    You have to remember, though, that insurance pricing is based upon the law of large numbers. Every carrier will tell you there are statistical anomalies. There will be high score folks who commit insurance fraud. There are low score customers who will never file a claim. All things being equal, though, those with low scores are most likely to file a claim.

    Big picture, every carriers wants to: 1)Provide a good rate of return for shareholders (keeping loss ratios down by managing risk for rate), 2) keeping rates as low as possible (to drive growth), and 3) to rate risks are accurately as possible (to drive profit).

    To accomplish these goals, carriers will use any legally allowed statiscal data they can use. It’s a myth that the color of your car determines your rate (no, red cars don’t get a higher premium – we have no idea what color your car is). That said, if carriers could prove beyond a doubt that red cars caused 20% of all accidents they’d start asking about the color of the car and rate for it.

    The ugly – I’ve been an agent and an underwriter. I’ve seen a lot of different policies over the years. It’s not uncommon to see someone with a Ferrari and a 450 score. It’s not uncommon to see someone with a $75,000 house and an 850 score. Often some of the lowest scores you’ll see are for small business owners who often have to leverage their personal credit to the hilt to build the business. Honestly, carriers don’t care how much money you make, what color your skin is, or how you vote. What they do care about is how likely you are to file a claim.

    So now to the question we’ve been debating – are minorities and/or the poor more frequently adversely affected by credit scoring? I think some probably are. I don’t think minorities are more likely to be fiscally irresponsible, and I think insinuating that they handle their finances poorly is irresponsible and harmful. Implying that the darker your skin the lesser your ability to handle money is a subtle form of racism, but racism nonetheless.

    I do think there’s a greater correlation for an adverse affect on the poor – if you’re choosing between food or insurance, food will always win. There are more incidences of fradulent claims (intentional theft/fire or padding claims for the money) when in a tight financial spot. No, I’m not implying the poor are out to commit crime, just noting a higher incidence of a certain behavior. But, as above, I would hesitate to say that people who have lower incomes are fiscally irresponsible.

    Overall, I support the use of credit scoring because it allows carriers to segment more thoroughly. Most people pay a much lower premium than they would if credit scoring was abolished.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*