As the errors, I thought they got ignored after 10 years no matter what, though I guess yours would have been right on the line if you put in the apps last year.

I’m with you guys on the monopoly/antitrust aspect; if the bureaus succeed in taking out Fair Isaac, they’re going to hear from a lot of politically ambitious Attorneys General.

As for averaging the three scores, mortgage lenders have been doing this, but for credit cards and the like it seems more like a three-chamber Russian roulette; when creditors have pulled my Equifax report (riddled with errors and still containing items from 1995) I got denied. When they pull Experian or Transunion, I’ve been approved. So will the new “more consistent” score be good for me or bad? I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

Your point is valid if that had also been true with FICO. I’m not absolutely convinced that all three bureaus used exactly the same FICO algorithm, and if they didn’t, there could be reasons for score differences other than those relating to differences in the underlying data.

I’ve had thoughts about monopolistic practices as well. What does it matter what bureau the lender uses if the result (assuming the data is the same) is the same from all three? Why even have three? Prediction: merging down to 2 or even one would “make sense” for the businesses.

Then, throw in the consolidation in the banking biz, and everybody developing exactly the same criteria for approving and not approving loans, and it almost looks like one big bank to a consumer (obviously exaggerating).

And if the bureaus ever managed to put Fair Isaac out of business or marginalizing it, which I see as a distinct possibility, I think there would be a SERIOUS, bordering on slam-dunk, antitrust problem with VantageScore.

“The agencies in the past each provided their own scores, meaning that a lender dealing with a consumer’s application for a credit card or a mortgage might have to reconcile three different scores. ”

This makes it sound like there was actual work done to reconcile scores. IF a lender uses more than one of the three, it uses all three and takes the middle number. Our experience suggests that few lenders rely on just one report anymore.

“In its joint announcement, the agencies said: “Under the new scoring system, credit score variance between credit reporting companies will be attributed to data differences within each of the three consumer credit files and not to the structure of the scoring model or data interpretation.”

There has always been slight “data differences” between the files and each agency had its own way of determining a score, to SAY that future variances will be attributed to data differences is the same as saying waves on a lake will be attributed to wind…

When every lender relied on their own determination of credit-worthiness, the lending industry had little sway in the marketplace. When every lender began relying on just three sources for a determination of credit-worthiness, industry power became concentrated in those three sources. What happens when ONE source determines the credit-worthiness of every American…we call that a monopoly right?