[Noisebridge-discuss] Bringing Down the Credit Bureaus

[dpc]

Brian Molnar <brian.molnar at gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A couple of things:
>> 1) I don't see any recognition of "good" credit.  This is reported on your
>> credit rating too, after all.  It's very important to everyone involved.
>>
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, "good credit" means the number of accounts that
> are held in good standing.

i might be conflating some things, but a large number of accounts counts
negatively as well (at least for whatever 'score' is used when
qualifying for a mortage).

>> 3) All of the current credit bureaus share information, so the
>> creditor has the most complete, accurate information to make a
>> decision on.  How could this system work with existing systems?  It
>> seems to me that it would require all creditors in the world to
>> subscribe at once, which simply isn't likely, or even possible.
>>
> This poses a problem for adoption. What's the incentive to use this
> system if you still have to use the old systems? So it's certainly a
> problem we'd need to think about and try to solve.

when i was getting a loan, the loan guys were looking at 'the number'
(it has a name like 'fair' or something which is actually the creator's
last name). the report (to them) had 'notes', but they didn't really
care about them (except to chuckle about them to me since i had known
him for a while in a non-loan capacity).

i think to compete one would need a score that was somehow more
indicative of a person's 'credit worthyness' than the current
scheme. text/history/whatever would be interesting to people willing to
take the time, but most are going to be using the number to make the
decision if they should bother at all.

\p

---
In case you weren't aware, "ad homineum" is not latin for "the user of
this technique is a fine debater." - Thomas F. Burdick (c.l.l)