They're not even subtle about it. The system directly rewards you for being in enough debt to always be paying someone interest but not enough that you might file for bankruptcy.
You don't have to be in debt, but you do need open credit lines. Having debt on them actually makes your score worse.
Her score likely went down because she closed out a credit line, i.e the open loan, so technically the "i have an open 5yr loan ive been paying on diligently" is no longer part of her score. The fact that she did pay it off is part of that score, but its weighted differently.
If she instead had 40k of credit cards she had open for 5yrs, with zero debt on them, her score would have gone up. Just having the account open, even not using them, shows a high "credit to debt usage" ratio and "a long time open loan." Both of those make up about 45% of your "credit score."
So no, you dont have to use a CC every month to keep a high credit score. If you want a high score, you want to open a credit card or 2 for their max value until you get about 30k-40k of total credit, and then don't use them at all. Not a bit. Never close them. The "long time accounts" + "high amount of debt not in use" + "never delinquent" is roughly 80% of your score. You can sail into the 700s/800s if you dont have any other credit hit.
You do have to use them a little bit though. It wasn't a great surprise to learn that my credit score evaporated right when I was looking to buy a house because a credit card I hadn't used in 7 years was turned off due to not using it. Having no debt, lots of savings, and decent income apparently counts for nothing.
The credit score is based on how much money the banks think they can make off of you, not your moral standing.
The system directly rewards you for being in enough debt to always be paying someone interest but not enough that you might file for bankruptcy.
The only interest I pay is a mortgage, but my score is over 800. It must be rewarding for something else too.
To play devil's advocate, I wouldn't trust a parachute that's never been deployed or one that's deployed every day for the last year. I want the parachute that was used maybe a dozen times over the last few months so that it's not brand new but not overused so I know it works but isn't a significant risk.
I have no idea how to calculate reliability, that's just what monke brain thinks.
Yes, lenders lend to make money.
I paid a credit card down from $1700 to $1200. My score went from 795 to 763. Fuck 'em and their fake money.
You're still carrying a balance of $1200 though. Pay it off and it should go up.
Believe it or not, it is better for your credit score to carry a low balance on your credit accounts than no balance, because glue tastes yummy to the credit agencies, I assume. /s
The reality is that lenders would rather have customers that utilize their credit and pay a lot of interest than ones that aren't lucrative and pay off their credit use immediately. They're looking for people willing to fall into debt traps that are ALSO able to reliably pay the interest within them without ever defaulting. That is what a perfect customer/capital battery looks like to consumer lenders.
Which means that credit scores are just an arcane measure to determine the potential profitability of borrowers, NOT a metric of the most responsible borrowers at all, because that would mean utilizing the least credit.
They like their little debt slaves
I'll take a lower score and no debt. They can eat their score.
2 of the factors are debt to income ratio and how many accounts of different types are open. If you pay off 99% of a car and refinance 100$ loan for 84 months… does that keep your score up?
So the reason this kinda idiocy happens is when the line of credit is closed, it actually decreases the average age of your credit accounts- which decreases your score.
That’s why people who pay off student loans have their scores drop sometimes, especially if they’ve avoided any other lines of credit.
This is silly anyway. I've paid off and cancelled many credit cards and loans, and your score drops by a small amount temporarily. It doesn't stay down.
Credit rating measures your profitability to the credit industry, if you pay off your loan early, they make in interest, thus less profit.
Not entirely true. I'm what they call a deadbeat (meaning I pay off my cards in full every month and have been doing so for the past 10 years, making them $0 profit), and I have a 800 score.
I think the more correct way to think about it is that it's an estimate of your profit potential. What everyone tells you to do with a score this high is to buy a house because you qualify for the best mortgage interest rates. But of course then they'll have me on the hook for the next 30 years, and they stand to make in excess of $100k in profit.
That would imply people who constantly carry credit card debt would have high credit ratings, which is false as far as I understand.
It’s not, really, although it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
Credit scores are now taking in more information than ever, so things like your debt repayments as a % of your income (affordability) are feeding in as well.
For the people carrying credit card debt, one CRA might give you a better score if you carry a balance >0 but <25% of your total credit limit, and another it could be 0 to 40% so you will see some score variability.
If your utilisation is higher your score may suffer. This is only one aspect, though. Repayments on other debt (mortgages, utilities, mobile phones) play a part, as do things like voter registration and the time you have kept open your accounts. TransUnion is now incorporating BNPL (like Klarna) data for some reporting, although not sure it feeds into the score view yet).
I would highly recommend using whatever free apps are available for each of the CRAs (TransUnion, Experian and Equifax are the three main providers) to monitor your score.
For TransUnion you should be able to use the Credit Karma app in both the US and UK, and in the UK you also have the ClearScore app for Equifax score.
Experian in the UK is on the process of removing 3rd party app access (would have been MoneySaving Expert app before, but that’s moving to TransUnion).
no it wouldn't, due to the higher risk of them not peying it back
It is bullshit, but there are ways to game the system. Essentially, a higher credit score means you're a better mark for creditors. It means you pay your bills, but you're never debt free. In order to maximize your gains and keep the capitalist machine running, you always have to be leveraged in some meaningful way. Basically, if you're really poor, you're fucked, but if you can somehow manage your bills every month and put your normal expenses on a credit card of which you never use more than 50% of your limit, your score will go up. Finish paying off a car? Finance a new car! It's ridiculous, but that's what they want us to do to keep the ruling class in power.
You're absolutely right.
Basically your credit score is some amalgam of how much credit you have available, vs how much you owe, and whether or not you pay your bills. If you have available credit and you have never used it, you suck. Giving you credit won't get the lender anything for their trouble. If you have a little debt, and you consistently pay it (read, pay them interest), then your score goes up because you're paying your creditors, so other creditors know that you're a good source of income for them.
The only thing that having a good credit score does, is give banks and institutions information on how much they could possibly wring out of you.
My score should be through the roof, but I'm too leveraged, I have something like 80% usage of my available credit. But I have a nontrivial amount of debt that I have carried for years and I've (sometimes painfully) always paid my bills on time.
My suggestion for anyone currently carrying significant debt trying to pay it off and increase their credit score: pay more than your minimum and take every offer they give you. If some institution says you're pre approved for some loan device, say yes. Even if you just throw it in a drawer. It will increase your total available credit driving down your occupied credit % and driving up your credit score.
It's categorically ridiculous how the credit system in good ol' 'Murica is based on you getting into debt so you can be deemed "trustworthy" by the banks.
A system designed to keep you tight om a leash, forever selling your labor to pay off that first debt.
Categorically ridiculous? Try systemic evil.
It's even more "funny" if you think it's the very opposite of how old fashioned bank managers used to judge people's creditworthiness in order to decide if they should get a loan or not, back in the day (and not even that much back: algorithmic loan decisions only became a thing in the late 80s and 90s.).
Honestly, after 700, it doesn't matter if you're 765 or 800. You're already approved.
Bunch of rentals in Seattle are requiring credit of 750+. I thought my 740 credit wasn't half bad for only being in the credit game for like 6 months but it still can't get me shit here
I just had to check.. I've been paying bills and shit on time for 15+ years and I am barely at 748. I even have like 60k USD in available credit. How the fuck do they have a minimum of 750 like wtf.
On another note, something also crazy is that I noticed that when I bought my first home my credit dropped 100 points. The banks actually lowered my credit score on buying a house...
740 is great, don’t let those fuckers get you down.
To get a car financed I think above 715 is the best place to be.
The easiest way to get an 800+ credit score is with a mortgage. If you have marginal credit taking the crappy mortgage will make your score better and you can refinance in 12-18 months and get a better deal.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about credit scores posted here.
The purpose of credit scores is to answer only one question:
How good are you at pay back a debt if someone were to loan you some money?
Thats it. Everything on how the score is calculated is weights and measures to service that question.
The reason that making payments on an active loan improves your score, is because it is real proof you are getting money from somewhere (the credit score doesn't care where) and you're choosing to spend that money on an agreed payment on the debt. Lets say I'm a lender and I'm considering giving you money, and I see that someone prior to me make a similar agreement, and you're honoring that agreement to pay, then it gives me a good reason to think you'll also pay on debts you have with me. The reason your score goes down when you pay off your last loan, is because I can't see you still have the money to pay on a new loan. It means you're a (slightly) higher risk because I'll have to take it on faith that where ever you got the money to pay off the last one, you'll also be able to get that money to pay off the one to me. There's no guarantee for that, so its a risk to me, a lender.
Another thing I'm seeing missing in the discussion here is:
"Doing X makes your credit score go down"
Technically true, but many of those things that make it go down only do so for a short time. Maybe a month or two (using modern FICO score system).
There can be arguments as to which inputs they use, and how much each of those inputs affects the score. So much so, rating agencies themselves even change their minds over time. They update what they think is important and downgrade what they think matters less. You've likely heard of a FICO score. Over time there have been SIXTEEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what makes a FICO score source. Some of the variation you see when you get your score from different places is those places using slightly newer or older versions of the scoring system.
Unfortunately lots of organizations that have nothing to do with lending you money are choosing to use your credit score for their own systems. I've heard of insurance companies using FICO scores as inputs to how they calculate premiums, which they shouldn't do. Some employers are using these now to filter applicants. Those employers are perverting the credit score system (again, a system just for loaning money) as a measure of trustworthiness or fidelity. I wouldn't mind laws that prevent that as that isn't what credit scores are designed for, and doesn't answer that question.
How good are you at pay back a debt if someone were to loan you some money?
That's the point!!!!
The only information we are given is that the OP paid off a debt and the credit score went down. You claimed that maybe it is only temporary. But that still goes against your giant text claim.
Why does paying back a debt announce that you are bad at paying back a debt?
It doesn't say that. You're drawing your own conclusion from the score decrease. Also, I didn't downvote you.
The only information we are given is that the OP paid off a debt and the credit score went down.
If that was the OPs only long term debt being serviced, (credit cards don't count), the credit agency now has no proof you can CURRENTLY pay off a new debt. Meaning OP is a slightly higher risk.
Credit agency has no idea where the money came from that paid off the debt. It only knows that OP was regularly finding money somewhere, and that OP was putting that money toward debt as agreed. Did OP lose their job after paying off the debt and doesn't have income anymore? Did OP have someone else helping them pay that that person won't help in the future? The credit agency has no idea. It only knows that in the past they were able to service the debt, and today they have no way to measure if they can. So it is a slight increase in risk, meaning slight decrease in credit score.
No it isn't. It's to force you to use credit under the guise of checking how good you would be at paying back.
I'm from europe, you know how much credit i had before i got a loan for my condo? absolutely zero. All they needed to know was that i had no debts, lived well within my means, knew what i was doing, not "how many credit cards and car loans have you got running". The best possible person to loan money to is someone with 0 credit history who can prove they've got a solid source of income, and are living well within their means. Because you know, once i bought my condo, paying my loan is the exact same thing as paying my rent.
And if you wonder if i got a decent loan with such a "terrible credit history". It was a loan with variable interest rate, after the first change, my interest dropped to 0 due to the financial crisis, and it remained at 0 until i paid it of.
Anyone actually believing the american credit score system is anything else than just a way to force you to use credit while you really shouldn't, is just indoctrinated. I'm sorry, but someone perfectly paying rent, and saving up for purchasing a house without ever using any credit is the perfect person to give a good mortgage too, and the exact kind of person this system sets out to punish because they're not taking part in the American banking system the way the banks want you to.
The best possible person to loan money to is someone with 0 credit history who can prove they’ve got a solid source of income, and are living well within their means.
Okay, so the "solid income" component is easily provable.
How can a lender know you're living well within your means?
I’m sorry, but someone perfectly paying rent, and saving up for purchasing a house without ever using any credit is the perfect person to give a good mortgage too
Paying rent is NOT equivalent to paying a mortgage. With rent, you're responsible for only making the rent payment. Nothing for housing upkeep and repair. Almost zero liability on how you keep your home could make you open to a law suit. No renter has to pay for the replacement of a roof or complete replacement of HVAC. Skills developed only to pay rent are insufficient for home ownership. That doesn't mean a renter can't grow to those home ownership skills too, but it isn't equivalent as you're suggesting..
The first part of what you say is still off even. Its based on other factors like debt to income, income amount and credit utilization. different lenders also use different calculations depending on the type of loan. For example a mortgage wont be the same as an auto loan and theres even a system for renters the scores can vary wildly and really the numbers dont even mean fuck all half the time. Underwriting is a whole career and a company doing lending that knows anything will look at how well you actually pay your obligations and weight it with how much you make, practically ignoring the score itself. Ive seen people with 350s get top tier financing and people with 700s without even a thin file (low history) get completely denied or stupid interest rates.
For reference I havent missed a single payment in my entire life, my credit is damn straight outside of some credit utilization on low limit cards and because of that my score is “mid” i dont really care at all though cause chasing the number will stress you out and you wont benefit much from it if you just make your payments anyways. Ive still gotten approved for most things ive applied for because of making my payments
Its based on other factors like debt to income, income amount and credit utilization.
You're off on some of your measurements. FICO scores are based on only 5 inputs:
- payment history (35%)
- amounts owed (30%)
- length of credit history (15%)
- new credit (10%)
- credit mix (10%).
different lenders also use different calculations depending on the type of loan.
I already touched on that with the 16 different types of credit scores: source
Underwriting is a whole career and a company doing lending that knows anything will look at how well you actually pay your obligations and weight it with how much you make, practically ignoring the score itself.
You're right that underwriting is a whole career, but we're not talking about underwriting. We're talking about FICO credit scores. You're bringing in things that aren't credit score, but are factors that lenders use for determining loan worthiness and interest they charge, but that isn't FICO credit scores.
Myself and OP are talking about the price of apples here. You're asking me why an apple pie costs so much. Yes, apples are an ingredient in apple pies but not the only thing that influence the cost of the pie.
ITT I’m seeing a few common misconceptions repeated by many otherwise correct and knowledgeable commenters without remediation. I’m addressing them here, because understanding financial systems empowers everyone, whether they wish to use them, change them, or burn them to the ground.
- Lenders only see your credit score. Mixed truth. Lenders can order specific scores to get a quick idea of credit-worthiness, but for most credit decisions a credit report or ordered. (This is often called a hard inquiry, and indicates a credit was applied for. A single inquiry is basically ignored by most scoring models. Many inquiries in a short timespan can be considered risky.) Regardless, the report is the same one you see when you order it directly from a credit bureau.
- Your credit score is universal. Mostly false. Credit scores are just someone’s guess of your risk to a lender based on data reported by previous lenders. Good guessers can make money guessing, but none are perfect, and some are only good at guessing risk for specific contexts. Who are they? First, there are the bureaus. They have various branded scores that they sell as products to lenders (for credit decisions) and borrowers (for credit building). Next, there are numerous companies who exclusively develop and sell scoring models. Finally, some lenders such as larger banks develop their own internal scoring models. All the above are adjusted regularly and tailored for specific industries and debt classes. I say “mostly false,” because it’s true that many scores use similar scales and the same records, which means they tend to rise and fall together. That’s why lot of people, even financial wellness advocates, often talk about “your score” as if it’s a single agreed-upon value, but the reality is scores are numerous, distinct, and variable.
- Credit reporting agencies use personal information for scoring. Mixed truth. Many bureaus have affiliated entities that broker financial data for ad revenue, but the information they are allowed to distribute in credit reports is tightly regulated in most countries. (Exceptions: there are alternative scoring model providers who fill a gap of niche debt types sought by applicants with no credit history, such as LexisNexis’ “RiskView” which can use more personal details like address stability and online purchase history to determine risk.)
- Credit history is permanent. False. Negative records like late payment, non-payment, and bankruptcies have expiration dates by law in most countries. Aside from when accounts were opened and closed, generally nothing in a credit report is permanent, and the scores can be extremely variable in practice.
- I should worry about my old credit score. False. Credit scores are used and discarded. New score overwrites old. The only thing that persists would be a credit decision, if there is one. Most scores are partially based on transient data and thus can bounce around wildly. For example, VantageScore 2.0 can dip by over 150 points because a large transaction put a card slightly over the limit but then rebound 150 points after the balance is reported within the limit. Similarly, FICO 8 can jump by 100 points just because the applicant was added as an authorized user to a card with a long payment history. Likewise, most scores can rise and fall drastically based on credit utilization (which is usually reported based previous statement balance, meaning even if you pay off cards every month your credit score will fluctuate in proportion to variance in monthly spending).
- Banks like credit card debt. False True. (Corrected by @[email protected]) Banks love it when you carry a balance. The interest accounts for the majority of their revenue.
The volatility of scoring is the most important takeaway, I think. The temporary nature of scores can be exploited pretty easily. If you understand how they work, you can often get the score you need at a particular time with a bit of planning. And the rest of the time, when you aren’t using your scores for anything, they’re vanity numbers at best.
Anyway, if I missed something or am wrong, please point it out.
I was under the impression that many hard inquiries in a small time frame was ignored because it means you're shopping for a loan.
Having a single hard enquiry every so often would mean you're needing to keep borrowing money for some reason.
True. This inquiry collapsing behavior is a feature of recent iterations of two popular models: FICO (8,9,10) and VantageScore (2.0,3.0).
Note however that:
- It only works for certain types of debt. For example, FICO8+ includes auto, student, and mortgage. VantageScore2+ includes utilities, auto, mortgage. No model includes revolving accounts like credit, retail, or charge cards.
- The inquiry collapsing behavior only occurs within a single asset class. For example, FICO8+ would collapse simultaneous shopping for student loans, car loans, and mortgages into 3 inquiries, not 1.
- The shopping period varies. FICO8+ ignores same-class inquiries for 30 days and collapses same-class inquiries within a 45-day window. VantageScore2+ does the same but only within a 14-day window.
Bonus hack: Certain banks also routinely collapse/reuse inquiries for same-day applications, permitting additional applications “for free,” which can be useful if you are denied your first choice and have a fallback in mind or if you are instantly approved for one product and want to try for another.
Credit card companies posted $176 billion in income in 2020, down from $178 billion in 2018. Interest fees accounted for $76 billion and interchange [merchant] fees accounted for $51 billion in 2020.
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/credit-card-company-earnings/
This source suggests interest, fees and charges account for well over 50% of income
True! Fed data corroborates this, and it appears the gap has only widened since.
(Image from 2022 CC profitability report)
So I was wrong. Thank you for the heads up. I’ll correct it shortly.
I shat my credit into single digit range threeish decades ago (yeah, I'm a boomer puke). I couldn't even get a bank account until about eight years ago. I finally was able to get an acct, got a secured card, and built my credit up to 729. 'Upgraded' my secured card to unsecured, but left the limit at $300 to keep me in check.
Then I made the mistake for applying for a modest credit line with my bank. Not only did I get denied, but the hard credit hit put me under 700. Then my credit took another major hit because I used that card for more than 31% of its limit. Never once made a late payment, neither.
As I hoped that a line of credit could afford me access to an oral surgeon (which I really need to even consider dentures, as I have mucho malo in my mouth), and as I have no interest in writing a grant to cover it, I'm fucked, as oral surgeons don't seem to take Medicaid in my shit state.
If I survive another yearish, Medicare might be helpful, but the problems in my pie-hole might not wait that long.
I do not want a handout. I want the chance to pay it off and not leave it to Medicare...and not die of the infections spreading to either my brain (such as it is) or my heart.
(Yaay, America!)
Why do you use credit cards in the first place? As a non American I never really understood that. Why doesn't America just have the "normal" (from my perspective) bank cards that just let you use money from your bank account. Why do you need to borrow and pay back? It seems like such a weird system, not just weird also dangerous, where you can end up in debt.
Credit cards offer more fraud protection, at least where I live, while debit cards offer nothing much. I buy on credit and pay it off fully every month.
American here. We have normal cards, they are called debit cards and are what most people use. Generizing a lot here, but credit cards are for people who were never financially educated, desperate poor people, or people who only use them to get plane miles or cash back.
It's absurd to me to put myself in debt for all but the most desperate of cases.
Agreed. Weird system, and dangerous for many. That's why I only allow myself a very limited card, which is what I used to build my shitty credit back up.
Most good credit cards have some form cash back, as in they give you a little bit of the credit card processing fee they place on merchants. Credit card benefits vary from card to card.
We use credit cards so much because it builds our credit score, which makes it significantly easier to take out loans for large purchases (eg car, house, etc) or rent an apartment.
We do have "normal" cards, they're called debit cards. You are right that it's weird and bizarre and dangerous. You shouldn't be using credit cards if you're living paycheck to paycheck imo.
Most Americans can't afford a $400 emergency and live pay check to paycheck. Car breaks down, emergency medical expenses, emergency house breaks down could all cost over $400. You need a Credit card for that back up that you could eventually pay back by probably sacrificing something else. Need a car need a credit score or you pay $3-10,000 more in interest same with buying a home. Want to rent need a credit check. Want to get a job at a bank, military contractor, some government positions, and other secure jobs. They want to make sure you don't have bad credit or can't be taken advantage of . Which no credit is often considered bad credit.
Have you considered committing a crime and getting caught so that you can go to prison for a year or two and get free dental?
Imagine a country for which this sounds even remotely viable.
It seems there are details missing from your story. I find some similarities to your story to my credit history and I've had drastically different results.
Also, single digit credit scores aren't a thing.
What's a "boomer puke"?
Not really any significant details missing.
The single digit score was what I was told by a friend in banking who looked it up for me, years ago, but I'm not arguing with you, as I didn't see it with my own eyes. She could have been lying.
Boomer = old person. Puke = asshole, fucker, or other insult.
Credit history length was shortened, lowering the score. Just give it another 5-7 years it'll build back up!
It’s ok, rich people don’t have to play by this system, so that makes it all better, right?
I have made the "stupid" decision to never get a credit card because I have, in the past, not been great at remembering to pay things off.
Because of that, I have virtually no credit rating.
How dare I choose to not get into credit card debt!
I've never seen the need either, and it's never caused me any problems. I've bought cars, a house, etc., and nobody has told me no yet, so I haven't worried about it.
What do you mean, pay things off? My credit card account is linked to my bank account and it's automatically balanced on the 20th of each month. Do you have to perform manual labour to send money from one account to the other one? Genuinely curious.
It wasn't always like that. Once upon a time, you had to send checks through the mail.
Use to not be able to get a credit card through your bank without having a significant amount in the bank or a home loan
How dare I choose to not get into credit card debt!
Having/using a credit card needn't cause you to pay a cent more than not using one.
If you just put on a credit card what you'd be buying in another way anyway, and then pay off your statement balance each month on your due date, not only do you not spend a single cent more (you'll never get charged interest this way), but you continuously build credit. The only difference will be that instead of paying for stuff the moment you buy it, you pay for all of your month's purchases all at once, at a later date.
I've never paid a cent of interest on any of my credit cards because I've done the above, and my credit score is over 800 as a result, today.
I get that and if automatic payments had been a thing when I was younger, I would have gotten a credit card back then. At this point, it's moot because I won't be working for the foreseeable future as I work with my daughter who is going through online school.
They say that it's better to have bad than to have no credit.
In any case, autopayments are surely your friend, and not just for credit cards.
Everything is on autopay now, but I'm in my 40s and there was no autopay back when I was having trouble remembering to pay bills. Then I was self-employed for years and the money was variable from month to month and I didn't feel like it was a safe bet to get a card if I couldn't be sure I'd have enough in my account to pay it back. And then when I got other jobs, I just never got around to getting a card. Now I'm not working (putting my daughter through online school) and my wife essentially gives me an allowance and it doesn't really make sense to get one.
Thankfully, my wife of 23 years has excellent credit.
I'm fucked if she leaves me.
I'd say inb4 someone high on copium tries to justify it, but I'm already too late.
Some people love taking time out of their day to type out at least one full paragraph on why this is okay and makes sense! When we know it doesn't, but they sure try their darndest to justify it.
What a waste of time and nonsense.
Tell ya what, I got a plan! We go back to the way it was before credit scores. If you're white, socially acceptable, know your banker and are a deacon in your church, you're approved!
"nOt LikE thAT!"
Children: I don't understand how this works so it's unfair!
Credit score exists only to sell you more credit score.
Credit history is what lenders are interested in.
I don't know much about it, but they definitely checked my credit score when I bought my last car.
They probably pulled your credit which also allows them to see a history.
I don’t know much about it, but they definitely checked my credit score when I bought my last car.
Even if you're paying in cash for a car, an automotive dealership will want to run your credit. They make quite a bit of money from lending money to others. Really the banks give car dealers kickbacks for the loans they deliver to the bank for sold cars.
In essence, if you buy a car in cash, you're denying the car dealer a chance to make a lot of money off the sale. They don't like that. They will do their best to try to sell you on a loan for your car even if you don't want it. That's why they ran your credit.
Can someone explain why the credit score is so important for americans? Are most of them getting loans for things to live?
Yes, they use credit cards for almost everything and I think it's expected of them to have one when they become adults.
An american can explain this better than me.
Your credit score can affect the interest rate of getting an auto loan or a home loan. Most adults will have a credit card to establish credit history but won't be using it to get by. Some might use it for stupid purchases though.
Not just credit cards, you want a car, or a phone, or a place to live? I've even hear of some employers asking to check the credit of potential employees, were suppose to always be in debt, because our out of control capitalism means the average person can't afford anything, it must be financed.
Most Americans can't afford a $400 emergency and live pay check to paycheck. Car breaks down, emergency medical expenses, emergency house breaks down could all cost over $400. You need a Credit card for that back up that you could eventually pay back by probably sacrificing something else. Need a car need a credit score or you pay $3-10,000 more in interest same with buying a home. Want to rent need a credit check. Want to get a job at a bank, military contractor, some government positions, and other secure jobs. They want to make sure you don't have bad credit or can't be taken advantage of . Which no credit is often considered bad credit.
Even apart from its necessity for getting bank loans at reasonable interest rates, most landlords check your credit score before renting an apartment or house to you. If your score is low you'll have trouble finding anywhere to live and you might have to live in your car ... if you can even afford a car without getting a bank loan for one.
There are numerous proprietary score algorithms out there. The newer ones seem to have fixed this bug by factoring history of closed accounts but many online “free credit report” services still use the old ones.
Old algorithms would often penalize account closure due to sudden reductions in average credit age, available credit, or credit mix (any of which might apply to the OP, but especially if that car loan represented a significant portion of their credit history).
Likewise, they would sometimes reward new debt if it significantly increased available credit or added a unique credit type to the mix. For example, a first mortgage could bump a credit score by 30 points or more, even though the individual is no more credit worthy than they were before.
Regardless, I think a good thing to keep in mind is that banks tend to maintain their own internal scoring systems. So not only is there no such thing as “THE score,” but the scores people are referring to when they say that are mostly just one credit bureau’s estimate, based on their proprietary rubric, of how a lender MIGHT see a potential borrower’s likelihood of default.
The banks often use the score by such scoring companies, as those scoring companies have access to all sorts of contracts, bank accounts etc. you have. Wheras you bank only has information provided directly by you.
The scoring companies can have tremendous impact on your life and often they use completely bullshit factors, like your postal code, where you are punished for living in a "poor" neighbourhood or rewards for living in a "good" niegbourhood.
There is also credible reports of ethnical discrimination, e.g. if your name is not a "white" name.
The scoring companies should be obliged to provide full disclourse for how they define a score and banks should be demanded to provide information, if they denied a credit based on such a credit score, with full liability of the scoring company, if their score was using discriminatory criteria.
The banks often use the score by such scoring companies, as those scoring companies have access to all sorts of contracts, bank accounts etc. you have. Wheras you bank only has information provided directly by you.
At least in the US, banks see the full credit report you see, not just a number. Using any of the specific scoring models (FICO X, VantageScore X.0, etc) that are championed by scoring companies or the various US credit bureaus is entirely optional.
The scoring companies can have tremendous impact on your life and often they use completely bullshit factors, like your postal code, where you are punished for living in a "poor" neighbourhood or rewards for living in a "good" niegbourhood.
This is quite a claim. How easy would it be to detect and verify that credit bureaus are using borrowers’ associated addresses substantively in their nationally deployed scoring models? I’d wager a college student with an excel spreadsheet and a one-line mailer could do this in a single semester. Now consider the CFPB auditor, with direct records access. How long would that take?
There is also credible reports of ethnical discrimination, e.g. if your name is not a "white" name.
Again, I respectfully suggest thinking these conspiracies through. Credit reporting agencies are fancy bookies in the end, right? They live and die by the legitimacy of the service they offer. So if one of their scoring models has worse predictive accuracy because it’s evil, few banks will use it. Not even because it’s evil, just because it sucks.
The scoring companies should be obliged to provide full disclourse for how they define a score…
They are. In the US, it’s the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In Germany, I think it’s tied to the EU Credit Servicers Directive.
I don’t enjoy defending credit bureaus of all things but conspiracy theories like the ones you’ve described distract from real systemic injustice and disrupt real collective action.
Edit: changed localized phrasing and content so as to not accidentally come across as disrespectful or dismissive.
+35 social credit
*Laughs in european
At least in France, they look at your income, your eventual debt monthly payments, and see if you will be able to pay more or not.
A lender will look at those things, as well as a credit score. Lots of folks in this thread are mistakenly trying to make credit score more than it is.
That's not at all a universal rule, and a low credit score can even affect employment in the US.
FICO Credit scores weren't even invented until 1989, when the US middle class began it's slow death.
Paying off loans early lowers your score. Using a credit card with a higher limit increases your score. It's never ever been a way of establishing that a person is trustworthy to receive a line of credit, it is a scam to put more people into debt and keep them there.
No one opts in to have a private company collect (and lose) their private information. You're born into a credit score.
Yes, you are incentivized to stay in debt, because creditors want to know that you are both willing to take on debt AND pay it off. The sweet spot for them is someone who never really pays it off but still makes minimum payments while interest piles on. This is the system working as intended.
My credit score is just under 750 right now and I haven't had any significant bills for a while. It's all because I co-signed with a loan my dad got that has been counting toward it.
I still can't open a line of credit above $350 tho. That score is so bullshit.
It's because you don't have any credit history (the co-signed loan doesn't fully count). Go get a credit card and pay off the full statement balance every month. That will build credit history and account age. DO NOT carry a balance, that incurs interest. Simply pay off the statement balance every month when the bill comes.
I missed a credit card repayment by 1 day and my score dropped almost 300 points (UK. 800 (very good) -> ~500 (below average))
That's very unlikely, there's more to that than you're letting on. Was the card maxed? What was your total utilization?
Why would that cause your score to go down!?
Because credit is partially based on the age of your accounts, so if you've only got a few accounts and you close an older one (such as a car loan) it reduces the average age of your accounts and can hurt your score.
It's stupid
This score system and being able to access resources sounds like dating apps.
dumb as phuk
Same here, paid off a 6 year in 2, score dropped 54 points.
Surprised all my student loans didn't buffer it a bit those are very old.I can't speak for anywhere else but credit scores are more or less bullshit in Australia.
As in, of course if you have outstanding bills or a legal claim against you no one gonna lend you money. You don't need a score to tell you that.
Similarly, if you've got enough money for repayments banks want to lend you money.
Anything in-between is about specific problems. An unpaid bill, not enough income, whatever.
The actual credit score isn't important. It's more like marketing - get a credit card to improve your score.
I paid off all of my debt and closed all of my open accounts. Credit score 515. Make it make sense. Fuck up once? 7 years of bad juju. Pay off all your debt? they forget immediately.
Credit scores don't measure financial responsibility, they measure how much money banks think they can make of of you.
The want you paying interest and account fees, even if that isn't financially responsible.
You need open accounts. You need to show you're responsible with debt management. Use a credit card like a debit card, any purchase you make pay it right away.
Car companies typically use TransUnion and they are normally higher than the other 2.
ooh this reminds me I had a coworker confidentially tell me credit doesn't go down after closing a line! I know in the long run it's beneficial but when living paycheck to paycheck it's not very easy to think about the future :)
I have refused to talk to her since lmao
A 35 point drop should either be a temporary blip, or a result of having practically no other credit.
A significant portion of your credit score is the average age of accounts. When an account closes, that is no longer accumulating time (this is also why you should just keep credit cards you aren’t using open, and if they have an annual fee, have the issuer change it to a free card if they can, I.e Chase Sapphire down to Freedom).
Another portion of the score is debt-to-limit ratio. If that goes from $250:$10,000, down to 0:0, you look a lot worse as a credit customer.
I don't think that changes the fact the system is illogical and stupid though. It's way too basic a system if that's how they're running it.
It’s pretty good for most people. There will be outliers.
The problem is, we have massive faceless banks that cater to nearly everyone. They need some system to gauge how much of a risk an individual lendee is.
The only real fair way to do that is based upon their reputation with other creditors over the past so many years. There’s a lot of metrics they can use ti measure that reputation, but all of them suck if you have little-to-no reputation to begin with.
Small community banks and credit unions had some more flexibility here since the bankers knew you, personally. However, I think it’s pretty obvious how subjectively judging someone’s credit worthiness can have some serious consequences based upon any -ism or -phobia you can name.
Money is the worship of a pure abstraction. Money is religion. It's the religion we were all inducted into. We perform rituals to gain the symbolism of our worship in the form of papers, sing metals, and abstract credit. We have faith in our religion, based on the morality and parables we've created around it. Should you lose your faith In the great pure abstraction, there are many broadcasts that evangelize it, justify its existence, and tells you how to live by its virtues.
The numbers Mason, what do they mean?
It actually sounds like the opposite.
Your "good" credit card customer is presumably paying more credit card fees on accounts so is actually less sound financially.
So if you mean playing the rules means paying higher fees to credit cars companies then that just helps show how stupid the system is.
Also, I actually disagree fundamentally with the argument. If it's just based on how old your accounts are then that is a shitty system. It's not only easy to play by the rules, but then presumably to abuse them as age of an account doesn't indicate much about your ability to pay off bills.
Credit scores aren't a measure of financial stability or trustworthiness, they're a measure of how much money the bank thinks they can make from you.
So if you pay off a loan early, then they aren't making money on your interest payments, so that negatively affects your credit score.
So this is kind of a breakdown of how it works. My 3 credit scores are all in the 800s, I only have one pay fee card and we're likely canceling it soon as we've got other cards that have better cash back deals. Here are a number of things that affect your score:
Using your cards, but not having a big balance on them monthly (we pay ours off, if not completely then the statement balance to avoid interest, but typically we pay them completely if we can)
Not missing any payments (haven't missed a payment in the 12ish years we've had cards)
Not having derogatory marks (credit dings from stuff like not paying debts or repossessions of cars or that sort of thing would hit hard)
Any temporary hits like applying for a new line of credit (cards, loans, mortgages)
Average age of credit (older lines help a lot, it hurts less to close a newer card than an older one)
Number of accounts, they want you to have a lot, over 12 I think is where it really positively impacts your score, and it can hurt you to only have a few
Anyway it's a complex system that's annoying and can be difficult to understand
Not sure what her financial situation is, but if the loan on her car was the oldest thing on her credit report paying it off will lower the average age of her credit history and that can lower your score.
If she had a credit card that was opened before she got the car loan and never missed a payment on the credit card, paying of the car would have raised her average credit history and raised her score.
It's not some secret how this stuff works, Credit Karma tells you all this.
You understsnd that we all know how it works, that doesn't mean it's any less hokey or bullshit.
What? Most of the posts in this thread show that you all DON'T know how it works
It's stills a fucking dumb system that control a big part of our life, like buying a house for example.
Why would paying something off lower your credit score though? You should be rewarded for that lmfao.
you misunderstand the function of the score. it's not a score that tracks how reliably you pay back your debts, it's a score that tracks how profitable you are as a debtor. someone who pays it all back before masses of interest can accumulate is not profitable. someone who doesn't pay it back and drowns in the interest is also not profitable. the best scores are for the people in between, who make the creditors lots and lots of money consistently.
It's for this reason that "building credit" over time is ridiculously easy if you game it properly - it's basically pay to win. the more consistently you pay interest but without looking like you're drowning, the happier they are. it's why having some utilization gets you better scores than paying everything off completely and having 0 utilization every month.
i agree it's very stupid in terms of incentivization and think it's probably the worst measure of social value we could have arrived at.
I find that my score drops roughly twenty points, and stays there for a couple months any time I've got a zero balance on my credit card on statement day.
I returned an $1,100 generator in January, resulting in an enormous negative balance on statement day.
I suspect my credit score will be down to zero this month because of it.
As a general rule, I pay my credit card off three or four times a month, making sure to leave five or ten dollars on there for statement day. It costs me zero interest to do this. It's just stupid that I need to do it.
I basically never have a balance on my statements, but score has been stable at 821 for many years. I even got a car loan this month and it only dropped to 817.
Yeah, keeping a small amount on the card will help, but that's really only to eek out a couple of points. I don't bother trying to min/max that much and my credit is 821/823 TU/equifax
Mine is generally the same as yours, but I can track back for years and see correlation with drops down to 800 or even 790 every month I've ever had a zero balance. I mean, it's really all vanity, but I had shit credit when I was young, so it's wired me to constantly monitor my score in my later years.
