The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Personal Finances / Credit Cards and Consumer Debt

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/joel-thanks-again-i-feel-i-am-usually-better-off-30543940.aspx

Subject:  Re: Another expose on the credit reporting indus Date:  2/15/2013  10:10 AM
Author:  xtn Number:  306825 of 308674

Joel,

Thanks again! I feel I am usually better off for any discussion I've had with you. Now...


So stating that a violation of the FCRA is libel is just me parroting court verdicts I've read. Well, some violations anyway. There are plenty of requirements that could be violated that wouldn't constitute libel. But I understand what you mean.

What am I to say about that? Data wants to be free! Okay, let's say I go along with that for the sake of argument. That implies the data doesn't belong to the consumer either, so end result of my logical analysis is the same: we cannot complain about the CPAs on the basis if it being "our" data.

BTW, disclosure of facts can be constrained by trade secret and non-disclosure agreements (contract). Those agreements can be buried in other contracts and be far from obvious... Oh sure. I'm pretty confident that Joe Blow consumer doesn't have any such agreement with a CRA, or with any of his creditors. In fact most any credit agreement I've laid eyes on in my lifetime - excluding those cocktail napkin agreements used between family members borrowing money from one another - has language such that the consumer specifically agrees to disclosure.

Other problems I have with the 60 Minutes gig are as follows:

1. They say one in five Americans have a credit report that contains an error. They say that's a 20% error rate. No it isn't. Error rate would be number of trade line errors divided by number of trade lines.

2. They gloss over the notion of any errors originating with the reporting lenders, and imply errors are only the fault of the CRAs.

Now I certainly don't mean to be defending the CRAs. I agree with the overall premise of the report, in that they are a giant mess and make it very difficult for consumers to correct info. I just don't like the twisting of fact used to promote agendas. I mean let's be honest, some fairly large hunk of errors must originate with the lender who are reporting. And it isn't unreasonable - logically speaking - to expect them to believe the lender over the consumer in a large percentage of cases. I don't understand how we can hope to improve things if we don't state the problem accurately. If a CRA comes back saying "Hey, your bank verified it," and you still think it's wrong, then sue your bank. If you've got a problem with mixed up identity, as did the lady in the 60 Minutes gig, then that's a different problem and needs a different solution.

I had one of those type problems. My own father's mortgages were showing on my report. I didn't complain. It was helping my score. Until a credit application clued me in to the fact that my apparent debt to income was horrible. Trans Union fixed the problem in less than a month. Maybe we need a law saying SS# is the only sorting field allowed, because it doesn't make sense to group by similar name and zip code, duh. Whatever the solution is... we aren't going to solve it unless we accurately state the problem. Running around yelling, "big evil corporation is trying to take away your rights" is dumb, I think.

xtn
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us