Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> You can check your credit report for free, as required by law, but nobody is required to tell you your credit score. You can also basically just pay to remove many things from your credit report.

There is no “the credit score”. Any lender is free to use whatever scoring algorithm they like. And they do. Some lenders may choose to use certain scores for certain things, but underwriting has no obligation to use one specific credit score.

Therefore there is no reason for people to care about their credit score, whether it be from FICO or credit karma or whoever.

The only thing you should do is make sure information on the credit report is accurate. And what is your source for claiming you can pay to get things removed from credit score? It doesn’t even make sense, as it just shows the status of your lines of credit. You can’t just make a line of credit disappear as no credit reporting agency or financial institution is going to want to commit fraud for any amount of money that an average person might offer.

Credit reporting agencies and financial institutions commit fraud all the time. They call it identity theft so that you think it is your fault instead of their fault. No one would care about a bank giving a loan to a person that was impersonating them except for the fact that the bank (credit card, mattress store, car dealership, etc) commits fraud and reports to the credit agency that you have defaulted on your loan when you have not. Then the credit reporting agency also commits fraud when they sell this false and damaging information to others.

This is the big lie. That "identity theft" should be the problem of the person who was impersonated. Pass laws that heavily fine entities that give false information to credit bureaus and fine credit bureaus who give out false information. "Identity theft" would no longer be something that people would worry about.

I agree that the consequences of identity theft should fall on the financial institutions and credit reporting agencies.

>Credit reporting agencies and financial institutions commit fraud all the time. They call it identity theft so that you think it is your fault instead of their fault. No one would care about a bank giving a loan to a person that was impersonating them except for the fact that the bank (credit card, mattress store, car dealership, etc) commits fraud and reports to the credit agency that you have defaulted on your loan when you have not.

That's literally what not fraud is.

>In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right

If some guy walks into a bank and claim they're you and they believe it, the banks aren't gaining anything. If anything, they lost money. Wrongly reporting the default to the CRAs also doesn't benefit them either; it's not like they compensate the banks based on how many default reports they send in. Finally, it's missing the "intentional" part. Lax security practices are negligence at best.

>If some guy walks into a bank and claim they're you and they believe it, the banks aren't gaining anything.

They would have just sold a loan.

>If anything, they lost money.

Can't they sell the defaulted loan to collections?

>Lax security practices are negligence at best.

Systemic, known, and long-standing negligence speaks to intention.

> Can't they sell the defaulted loan to collections?

Why would anyone pay face value for a defaulted loan?

>They would have just sold a loan.

Yeah, that's what their books say, but that doesn't necessarily match reality. In reality they gave $1000 in cash to someone, and their expected return on that is a fraction of that. Same logic if you bought paid $800 for bonds with face value of $1000, but unknown to you, the bonds are actually junk bonds with a expected value (factoring in repayment and default) of $500. In that case your paper gains are $200, but in reality you actually lost $300.

>Can't they sell the defaulted loan to collections?

They gave the bad guy a loan for $1000. They're out $1000. They sell the loan to collections for $300, they're still out $700.

>Systemic, known, and long-standing negligence speaks to intention.

Security exists on a spectrum, and there are trade-offs to be made. Clearly the banks don't have an interest in selling fraudulent loans, and putting up too much barriers when it comes to authentication also has costs.

Does... interest stop being a factor? They gave an x-year loan for $1000 at x% APR (was it subprime?). Also, penalties. Collections can go after you for the full amount. They buy it from the bank for the original $1000+.

Or, the loan hasn't defaulted yet. The bank suspects it will. They load it into a bundle, get it highly-rated, sell the bundle. They make a profit. A whole bunch of other people get hosed.

>Clearly the banks don't have an interest in selling fraudulent loans

This is the wrong decade to be making that statement.

Maybe a better way of say this is that the bank is committing libel when they report to a credit bureau that you have defaulted on a loan when you have not. They say you did something that you did not do and the fact of them declaring that lie does you damage. The important thing is that "identity theft" should be a problem for the entity that made the loan to a criminal and not the person that was impersonated. Call it "bank libel" when someones credit score is ruined by a bank that gives a loan to the wrong person and one is closer to describing the truth of the situation.

Edit: mindslight mentions in this thread that: "The 'Fair' Credit Reporting Act explicitly immunizes the surveillance bureaus against the tort of libel". Amazing.

That's not fraud. The tort you're looking for is libel. The "Fair" Credit Reporting Act explicitly immunizes the surveillance bureaus against the tort of libel. This is actually another instance of regulatory capture.

Yes, you are right. It's libel.

Wow, I did not know that the surveillance bureaus are exempt from libel. What an incredible law against the interests of the people. That explains why I've never heard about class action suites against them. I'll have to read up on it. Thanks for the info.

"Pay for delete" in collections reported has transitioned from a rarity, to most RMA agencies offering it directly in their initial letter and websites. None of the credit bureaus have pushed against this publicly in the last 3 years of it being more widely adopted.

If the owner of the debt accepts a lower cash payment in exchange for canceling the debt, I don’t see how that’s a problem for the public. It’s a problem for lenders, but seems like they’ve caught onto it: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/pay-for-delete

In my experience, I've been able to settle for less than full balanced owed (the collection agencies buy them by the bundle for pennies on the dollar), and all negative tradelines removed (original charge off and collection account) under new (2018ish) publicly listed policies of doing so.

This approach is mainly used by third-party debt buyers, like Encore/Midland/Cavalry. And doesn't apply to public judgments, if they decide to pursue that route. Thankfully, I have managed to avoid that in my credit recovery journey.

First-party (original creditor) will laugh or tell you it isn't possible if you ask for a PFD settlement, but there are documented instances of it happening as early as 2010 in my research for "making the case" before these policies started to become more widespread.

> And what is your source for claiming you can pay to get things removed from credit score?

It is definitely possible to do a "pay for delete" to have negative info removed from a credit report in exchange for payment.

It’s not the credit reporting agency that’s doing it though, it’s the lender.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/pay-for-delete

I don’t see what the problem is if the owner of the debt agrees to erase the debt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com