Experian 'lower my bills' - quite useful?

Ritchie74

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yet again, you've swung the pendulum - i've never denied that lenders use experian, i'm saying they take no notice of the suggested credit score that experian show us when we log-in to my experian!

You know where it tells you a predicted score - this number is irrelvant! That is what I am saying......

I never once said my account was dormant - I've stated several times now that citi report the account after its got a £0 balance and so HSBC asked me if it was dormant as it always has a £0 balance.....

I'm confused as to what you're arguing over and getting posh about the small salary you earn for... i'm not disputing the basis of your accuracy, i'm disputing the fact that the score experian gives you is not an accurate based score and should not be taken as guaranteed to obtain credit.

Oh for goodness sake, I wasnt 'getting all posh' and not my salary isn't massive - was stating that as you was making out that I no longer working the industry. In hind sight I shouldn't have stated this but you annoyed me by making out I know nothing and hence no longer employed inthe field.

Even if what you are saying is right and that paying off in full is reported as a £0 balance looks dormant, lenders would know the account is not dormant as monthly and app feeds from the bureau supply utilisation over the 3/6/9 and 12 month. Any spend would be represented in these variables.


I have a lot of symathy with people in debt and wanted to share my knowlenge on here. Banks (most of them) are also very sympathetic if you keep them informed of current circumstances. Off topic, I know but just wanted to state this.

Yes Scores are pointless to people as they do not know how they are used. However to banks they are a very useful tool for both aquisition and account management.

Never inDoubt - I have been reading this forum for several months and a lot of what you say is correct and helpful to users. However I felt I must respond to the constant 'credit score is random' misconception that you are putting about.

I may be a new poster, but I have 12 years exp in the field.

never-in-doubt

Ritchie74 wrote: »

I have a lot of symathy with people in debt and wanted to share my knowlenge on here. Banks (most of them) are also very sympathetic if you keep them informed of current circumstances. Off topic, I know but just wanted to state this.

Yes Scores are pointless to people as they do not know how they are used. However to banks they are a very useful tool for both aquisition and account management.

Never inDoubt - I have been reading this forum for several months and a lot of what you say is correct and helpful to users. However I felt I must respond to the constant 'credit score is random' misconception that you are putting about.

I may be a new poster, but I have 12 years exp in the field.

I only go on about the CRA's because too many people listen to this score and take it for granted. The score means nothing and that is what I was putting about - that is true.

On Watchdog earlier in the year they done a test on this exact subject and the results were conclusive, although experian provide a score this does not reflect what a lender will do.... it'll be on the BBC website I assume?

Anyway, back on track I respect what you're saying but to be fair I think you mis-read what I originally put. I can go into link after link of proof that suggests the score provided cannot be used as gospel because the DCA's would then be personally involved in credit making decisions...... surely you grasp where i'm coming from here?

Thats what I was saying all along - sorry to have offended you, peace dude :beer:

p.s. yea I am anti banks in general and as you say, if you see my posts you'll see I tend to stand by consumers but as I said earlier, i've been skanked well and truly by the CRA's and so yea, personally i'm like 'fathers for justice' all by myself but that doesn;t mean i'd deliberately give out wrong info to people....... obviously i'm glad you can now see I wasn't arguing with you - I was trying to make one point (just the one) lol

Ritchie74

never-in-doubt wrote: »

And I think you'll find that Logistic Regression is the correct way of working out payers from non payers into the scorecard......

This is correct, we do use Logistic regression step wise in SAS to build scorecards for application. But guess what, credit score is one of the variables fed in to the model.

In at least 2 banks I have worked for, credit score alone was a policy rule for Credit Limit Decreases. If a cardholders score was below a certain level their limit was reduced to current balance + 10% and rounded up to nearest £50. Ok this example wa a strategy in my previous work place and may or not be a current strategy (I left 18 months ago).
It would not be right to comment on my current employers strategies so apologies if I am not proving enough 'proof'.

Hope my comments have helped some people and apologies to all that this has turned into an argument. It wasn't meant to be the case at all.
I am not a 'know it all' or a show off or anything. Just dont loke to read incorrect info being banded about.

never-in-doubt

Ritchie74 wrote: »

This is correct, we do use Logistic regression step wise in SAS to build scorecards for application. But guess what, credit score is one of the variables fed in to the model.

In at least 2 banks I have worked for, credit score alone was a policy rule for Credit Limit Decreases. If a cardholders score was below a certain level their limit was reduced to current balance + 10% and rounded up to nearest £50. Ok this example wa a strategy in my previous work place and may or not be a current strategy (I left 18 months ago).
It would not be right to comment on my current employers strategies so apologies if I am not proving enough 'proof'.

Hope my comments have helped some people and apologies to all that this has turned into an argument. It wasn't meant to be the case at all.
I am not a 'know it all' or a show off or anything. Just dont loke to read incorrect info being banded about.

Thanks - useful info to know...... also my apologies for my part of said argument. :beer:

Ritchie74

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I only go on about the CRA's because too many people listen to this score and take it for granted. The score means nothing and that is what I was putting about - that is true.

On Watchdog earlier in the year they done a test on this exact subject and the results were conclusive, although experian provide a score this does not reflect what a lender will do.... it'll be on the BBC website I assume?

Anyway, back on track I respect what you're saying but to be fair I think you mis-read what I originally put. I can go into link after link of proof that suggests the score provided cannot be used as gospel because the DCA's would then be personally involved in credit making decisions...... surely you grasp where i'm coming from here?

Thats what I was saying all along - sorry to have offended you, peace dude :beer:

p.s. yea I am anti banks in general and as you say, if you see my posts you'll see I tend to stand by consumers but as I said earlier, i've been skanked well and truly by the CRA's and so yea, personally i'm like 'fathers for justice' all by myself but that doesn;t mean i'd deliberately give out wrong info to people....... obviously i'm glad you can now see I wasn't arguing with you - I was trying to make one point (just the one) lol

I guess we are coming from different angles and are both right in different ways. I am an employee as well as a customer and do try to see things from both sides.

never-in-doubt

Ritchie74 wrote: »

I guess we are coming from different angles and are both right in different ways. I am an employee as well as a customer and do try to see things from both sides.

What you just said above about the way credit score decline to limit + 10%, you've just confirmed your ex employer to us all... haha

It was either barclays (99% chance) or HBOS (1% chance) and I'll back the favourite myself......

I assume you seen the thread about reducing limits? http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1694063

LOL - the barclays ones just happen to be reduced to limit plus approx 10% rounded up.... quite funny now to think you probably had some say in it! :rotfl:

bert&ernie

phew, I'm glad we sorted that one out.

Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship?

PS. "logistic regression" - that threw me, I had to look it up. Guess I wont be building any scorecards soon.

never-in-doubt

bert&ernie wrote: »

phew, I'm glad we sorted that one out.

Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship?

PS. "logistic regression" - that threw me, I had to look it up. Guess I wont be building any scorecards soon.

I never had any issue, we were barking up the same tree with different arguments but I think the same thing was meant.... maybe I ought to rephrase the way I word things a little... (learning curve for N-i-D)....

I hope he stays as useful to have on board.... if he spills some secrets of course

LOL, so I managed to hit you with something you had to look up - that's a first :beer:

bert&ernie

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I never had any issue, we were barking up the same tree with different arguments but I think the same thing was meant.... maybe I ought to rephrase the way I word things a little... (learning curve for N-i-D)....

I hope he stays as useful to have on board.... if he spills some secrets of course

LOL, so I managed to hit you with something you had to look up - that's a first :beer:

We'll I guessed it was some kind of statistical thingamajig, but my knowledge of building scorecards is rudimentary at best. We have a team of people who do this, but the management prefer to lock them away in the basement where they wont scare the rest of the staff.

I work in IT, and most of my colleagues seem well adjusted compared to some of the stats monkeys in our place. No offence Ritchie!

Ritchie74

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I never had any issue, we were barking up the same tree with different arguments but I think the same thing was meant.... maybe I ought to rephrase the way I word things a little... (learning curve for N-i-D)....

I hope he stays as useful to have on board.... if he spills some secrets of course

LOL, so I managed to hit you with something you had to look up - that's a first :beer:

Seem to be having issues posting - 3rd time tried this now (?!?!?!).

Anywho, re who I do/did work for - can't comment for obvious reasons.

Where I think people get confused as to why they are declined/ account actioned is due to this...
Banks tend to base future decisions on past behaviour. Accounts are categoried into profiles according to how their account is managed. They themself could be a customer who is 'good' (e.g. never missed a payment) however match a 'bad' profile.
So let's say a certain profile is classed as 'bad' according to past behaviour. On a go fowards basis accounts matching this profile may be actioned (forced closure, Limit decreased, Apr increased) even though they are 'good'. This is based on the overall bad rate of that profile. Perhaps 20% of the accounts will never pay the bank back. The bank knows that 80% of the accounts will pay back, however as a group it is loss making. Sadly all banks can really go on is statistics.

Internal/external scores can be reduced or be low even if a customer ALWAYS makes their payment on time (e.g. things such as utilisation, Cash usage, quasi cash (e.g. gambling) always min payers can all impact score). In general though, as you stated, scores are created using logistic regression and hence if behaviour is generally good, then the score (internal & external) should be good.
Of course banks see different characteristics as being bad so unfortunatly for the customer it is hard to determine what is good/bad behaviour.

Sorry for long winded post and going off topic somewhat :-)