Credit rating

thebritishbloke

RMS2 wrote: »

Because you say so, so I must be.

Except you are wrong.

There are people with excellent credit files who will get turned down by some lenders because they don't fit their profile customer. And there are people with poor credit files who will get accepted. Lenders interpret the files in their own way, there is no right or wrong. And just the same as the CRAs interpret the file and put their twist on it by giving it a score.

It must be nice and simple, uncomplicated in your world, but sadly wrong.

The fact that I've been thanked for that post by two prolific users of MSE, should show that I'm not wrong.

Only very very rarely will someone with an excellent credit history be turned down where someone with a poor history is accepted. If this happened regularly, the regulators would have a field day with irresponsible lending.

Your first post was going on about how the CRA scores matter, the simple answer to that is... they don't. Your credit history is what matters.

RMS2

thebritishbloke wrote: »

The fact that I've been thanked for that post by two prolific users of MSE, should show that I'm not wrong.

Oh, that's the formula for being correct is it? The number of times you are thanked. I'm afraid that back in the real world, it isn't.


My thanks ratio to posts is slightly higher than yours, so I must be more correct, no?


I have another account, that I must resurrect (I lost the password, so I set this up for the moment). It has a very low thanks rate, but that's because it dates back to 2004 and most of my posts were done before 2008, and there was no 'thanks' button then. Does that make the account wrong, because it has little in the way of 'thanks' on it. What utter tosh.


Stick to facts and stop waffling on about 'thanks' buttons, they get you nowhere in the real world and they could all disappear tomorrow.

On_my_way

Instead of "good" or "bad" credit scores look at how you look to a lender. Mortgage lenders don't like to see defaults on files for example!!

thebritishbloke

RMS2 wrote: »

Oh, that's the formula for being correct is it? The number of times you are thanked. I'm afraid that back in the real world, it isn't.


My thanks ratio to posts is slightly higher than yours, so I must be more correct, no?


I have another account, that I must resurrect (I lost the password, so I set this up for the moment). It has a very low thanks rate, but that's because it dates back to 2004 and most of my posts were done before 2008, and there was no 'thanks' button then. Does that make the account wrong, because it has little in the way of 'thanks' on it. What utter tosh.


Stick to facts and stop waffling on about 'thanks' buttons, they get you nowhere in the real world and they could all disappear tomorrow.

Considering you ignored the rest of my post then and woffled on about the one sentence where I mentioned the thanks.

Do some research, then come back and give advice. Going on here and giving people bad advice isn't going to help anyone.

I'm not going to post on this topic anymore, as it's just going to induce an argument.