DocDon Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 I just pulled my true FICO (which only shows a 6 point difference from TU personal score). The bar graph is a straight numbering system all the way up to 850 which shows 100% of the credit population has a worse score than you. The majority of the population realistically probably falls anywhere between 680 and 720. I have yet to hear of one person who is above 800. Even at 800, 10% of the credit population has a better score? There's about 1 million people with an 850 score? I don't think so. A score of 725 (which is pretty darn good) shows there's still 50% of the credit population with a score higher than yours. Their bar graph is way off. You can't "straight line" a scoring system like that. If FICO changes daily, the percentages on their bar graph should change as well. If 90% of the population falls between 680 and 720, that leaves 5% in both directions, which is more realistic. I would be more apt to believe that at 725, only 5% of the population has a better score, not 50%! Given the state of our economy, and the reports coming out of the creditors daily, it would be a safe bet to say FICO is bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 I agree it's skewed, i.e., it's distribution, although bell shaped, doesn't follow an ideal normal distribution where the median and the mean are equal.... The majority of the population realistically probably falls anywhere between 680 and 720....Where did you get this ?Here are the figures I have offhand from a combination of numbers quoted (un)Fair Isaac's free brochure and the scale shown on my FICO reports:Score Cumulative %age of general population less than score----- ------------------------------------------------------ 300 0 550 5 600 13 620 20 650 24 690 40 700 40 740 60 750 60 780 80 800 89 850 100 Note that this meshes 2 data sets together so there's bound to be some conflict, which you can see in the middle of this set. I just use the average of the two scores for duplicate %'s.These data say to me that only about 15% of the general population fall between 680 and 720....I have yet to hear of one person who is above 800. Even at 800, 10% of the credit population has a better score?...That's what the data say, or 11% if you look at the number set I have....I have yet to hear of one person who is above 800....I don't think you'll find many of them on this or many other credit repair boards. They all may be living in them fancy houses up on the hill. I'm not being a smartass here. I'm just saying consider what portion of the population have you been "sampling".... There's about 1 million people with an 850 score? I don't think so....I don't see where that claim is made. ???...If FICO changes daily, the percentages on their bar graph should change as well...FICO changes when they decide to change it. I've heard monthly. Of course, the statistics on the population they have fit their curve to probably theoretically be updated every millisecond ! I imagine a "real-time" FICO algorithm would be quite expensive, don't you ?... If 90% of the population falls between 680 and 720, that leaves 5% in both directions, which is more realistic. I would be more apt to believe that at 725, only 5% of the population has a better score, not 50%! Given the state of our economy, and the reports coming out of the creditors daily, it would be a safe bet to say FICO is bunk.I think there are plenty of people, including myself and Christine Baker (http://creditforum.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=3), who would agree with the term "bunk" as well as "fraud", "scam", "turds", et al. But I don't see the numerical conclusions you are drawing from the data as correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted July 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 I didn't get that info from Fair Isaac. I work in the credit card industry (on the merchant side), and get reports right from the lenders (especially Visa, MC) regarding where consumers stand. I don't use Fair Isaac, and when it comes to data, I don't use numbers that come from Fair Isaac, or any numbers that rely on their data. I took the number of consumers from my info to find the "average" score block based on payment and default stats, and lending trends. This includes number of consumers using credit, number of defaults, and economic and unemployment info. Again, they are averages, as are most stats. I then came up with the numbers based on that data.As far as my "sampling", I live in Oakland County, Michigan which is one of the richest counties in the U.S. There's a ton of those "houses on the hill" that are up for sale now. The economy has hit hard here too (Kmart headquarters is 2 miles from my house). So that's where I got that info. I'm not saying I'm 100% right, but given two different sets of information, and knowing Fair Isaac has a lot more to lose, I leaned toward them skewing numbers to ensure their existence. I still don’t believe that 50% of the consumers are above 725. I agree with you, crofttk, updating FICO in real-time (daily) may be impractical for Fair Isaac - but it's not impossible. If the NYSE can do it, so can they, and the stock exchange analyzes a lot more data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 I didn't get that info from Fair Isaac.... given two different sets of information, and knowing Fair Isaac has a lot more to lose, I leaned toward them skewing numbers to ensure their existence. I still don’t believe that 50% of the consumers are above 725...OK, well that was definitely the source of my disconnect, Doc. I simply should have asked where you got your info. to start off with and left it at that. I had no clue you had the access that you do, and that just shows how small the world of numbers that I have (obvious) access to is.So, I hope you weren't irreconcilably offended by my challenge there !I jumped the gun.Thanks for the input !So, FICO is skewed and we are screwed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted July 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 So, I hope you weren't irreconcilably offended by my challenge there !I jumped the gun.Thanks for the input !So, FICO is skewed and we are screwed ! I'm a true believer of all things based in fact, not just numbers thrown out there to confuse us and promote some one-sided agenda. So, if Fair Isaac is getting the same data I am direct from the source, then they're full of it. Kinda like if you really pay attention to all the "causes" in the world and the stats they throw out. This is the number one killer, these many are dying from that. If you add up the numbers, by next year, there's only going to be five of us left, and four of them will have tooth decay.So, no offense taken. Not even miffed. You're one of the good ones on this board. I enjoyed the debate. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofttk Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts