Very confused on TransUnion score

[rghilliard]

Filed BK7 in August 2012, discharged November 2012. Have been cleaning and everything is correct except some Capital One errors on Experian. Have been approved for Kohls and Target. Applied for the Walmart card and was denied. Denial letter shows a TransUnion score of 477. This didn't make sense as everything had been kept current right up until the bankruptcy and the bankruptcy, as bad as it is, is the only derogatory on TransUnion. All old accounts show IIB with a $0 balance. I signed up for the free 7 day trial on TransUnion and the score they gave me was 707! How can this be? Both scores came from TransUnion and they are off 230 points!

[mariuszh]

The score you recieved from Walmart is not your TU FICO. The score Walmart references is a different scoring model.

[cv91915]

Run your report against 20 different score models on the same bureau and you could very well get 20 different answers. It all depends on the scoring model that's used.

 

That's why the consensus here is to only seriously consider your FICO scores, as that is the only real apples-to-apples comparison, and the only score used regularly by actual lenders.

 

Except when it's not.

[pjmaxwellian]

If you read your denial letter from Walmart, you will see where it says it's their own scoring model, based on info from TU, but not a TU Fico. Comparing Walmart's score to a TU Fico is like comparing a watermelon to an elephant.

 

The first time I saw my Walmart denial score, it scared the H outta me, until I read it again.

Edited May 20, 2013 by pjmaxwellian

[mariuszh]

Every denial I have gotten on a store card included a scoring model that displays a much lower score than a FICO

[robjane58]

When i was denied a credit increase on my Walmart card in February 2013 the Transunion score used in the denial letter was from November 2012 and was 690. They were using a score that was 90 days old but it did match the the FICO score from Walmart for November. My Walmart Transunion score for December was 750, January 773 and February 775.

[T77125]

My TU Walmart & TU My Fico as well as my TU score direct from TU have been pretty much the same since I started mointoring them a couple of years ago. They are usually within 1 to 5 points of one another.

[pjmaxwellian]

My TU Walmart & TU My Fico as well as my TU score direct from TU have been pretty much the same since I started mointoring them a couple of years ago. They are usually within 1 to 5 points of one another.

The TU score you get with your Walmart card is not necessarily the one used when applying for credit. I've apped twice and been denied twice, both times they pulled TU but the score given with the deinial letter was based on their own internal scoring system.

[HERE WE GO !!!]

That is so messed up !! A person should be able to get the EXACT score from CRA'S that is sent to creditors.

 

I have monthly monitoring from Transunion, Equifax, and Experian. My Experian score is 100 points less than Transunion and Equifax.

 

ALL 3 CRA'S have the same EXACT information.

[cputrwz]

Yes there should be some mandate by the government or something to have 1 CREDIT SCORE and 1 model for each bureau.... I think its so purple that people can use their own, use enhanced ones, used old ones, use new ones... its rediculous. There are auto scores, mortgage scores..... lions and tigers and bears oh my!

[HERE WE GO !!!]

Yes there should be some mandate by the government or something to have 1 CREDIT SCORE and 1 model for each bureau.... I think its so purple that people can use their own, use enhanced ones, used old ones, use new ones... its rediculous. There are auto scores, mortgage scores..... lions and tigers and bears oh my!

LOL

[SomeGuyInCA]

There is no mandate that credit scores be used at all in lending decisions. It's their money - they get to determine the parameters within which they will lend it, since they are assuming all of the risk. If they want to use their own specialized risk scores, or no risk score at all, that's just fine.

[rghilliard]

Thanks for all the helpful replies. Since it is now six months past my discharge, I decided to take a chance on a Barclay card. I was denied, but the nice lady I talked to on the recon line gave me my TransUnion score of 622, which is more like what I was expecting. Based on my conversation with her I should probably wait six more months and reapply with Barclay. With the Walmart scoring system, I may never get that card.

[cputrwz]

There is no mandate that credit scores be used at all in lending decisions. It's their money - they get to determine the parameters within which they will lend it, since they are assuming all of the risk. If they want to use their own specialized risk scores, or no risk score at all, that's just fine.

 

I'm aware there isn't one... which is why I said there should be. And so what if its their money? You can set up parameters within which they will lend it just as easily if the scores were all standardized. I'm not saying they shouldn't have rules in which they feel comfortable lending... I'm saying there should be 1 credit score for each bureau. Why does there have to be umpteen dozen of them? No point, other than to make people not know what the hell their credit score is... lol.

[SomeGuyInCA]

 

There is no mandate that credit scores be used at all in lending decisions. It's their money - they get to determine the parameters within which they will lend it, since they are assuming all of the risk. If they want to use their own specialized risk scores, or no risk score at all, that's just fine.

 

I'm aware there isn't one... which is why I said there should be. And so what if its their money? You can set up parameters within which they will lend it just as easily if the scores were all standardized. I'm not saying they shouldn't have rules in which they feel comfortable lending... I'm saying there should be 1 credit score for each bureau. Why does there have to be umpteen dozen of them? No point, other than to make people not know what the hell their credit score is... lol.

 

That's not true at all. There are many reasons for custom scores. Take auto-enhanced scores, for example: consumers benefit from these scores because they favor behavior with respect to auto loans over other credit types. There are many consumers driving new cars who would not qualify if straight FICO scores are used.

 

You also miss the point that the credit SCORE is not the primary product of a CRA. When you buy a house and get a FICO score, for example, the CRA may not have sold that score, and even if they had, they would have had to pay Fair-Isaac for the privilege. Consumer Reporting Agencies sell data first and foremost, not scores. When you get a score from a lender, that score may not have been provided to them by the CRA at all. It may have been provided by a third party, or internally derived. So, even if you mandated a single score provided by the CRA, it wouldn't change the problem you allude to in any way.

 

What you are really seeking is a government mandated demand that all creditors use the same scoring system, and frankly speaking, I think that's a terrible idea. First of all, consumers are the beneficiaries of specialized scores. I already provided the example of auto-enhanced scoring. Insurance scores are another example - they also benefit consumers, because they weigh negatives differently and often result in better scores for consumers with blemished credit than their standard FICO scores might. Second, custom scoring systems as deployed by lenders often are used in order to most carefully manage their risk. If you mandate that they use a single, standard scoring system, the ultimate effect will be to increase the costs born by consumers and to diminish the range of credit types available to consumers with blemished credit. This will happen because companies that can't model risk effectively will be forced to either raise costs in order to compensate, or to limit their services to riskier clientele. Right now, flexible scoring systems allow creditors to serve a greater range of consumers and to do so with lower costs - If you mandate a single, standard scoring system, all of those benefits to consumers go away.

 

There are also problems with a standard scoring system in that there is no way to mandate a score that is provided by a for-profit entity. The government could not, for example, mandate that only FICO 08 is used, because doing so would anti-competitively favor Fair-Isaac. The equivalent would be the government mandating that all cars must be made by Ford, or demanding that all airlines use Boeing aircraft. So the result of your suggestion, ultimately, is that the government would have to develop and mandate a specific scoring system. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to do that in a way that actually makes our lives better. In addition, doing so would ultimately put a lot of private companies out of business, and that's not good for our economy. It also would be a direct cost to all taxpayers, which again is not ideal.

 

I sympathize with the frustration many people have with respect to the differing scores they see across providers, but I don't think mandating a single scoring system is going to be a workable solution.

Edited May 22, 2013 by SomeGuyInCA

[cputrwz]

well i have to disagree, i dont give a rats behind if I benefit from an auto enhanced score or not. And i do realize there is more to a report than a score but even if we had one score the data in our credit file would still be there. If we were all placed on the same sheet of music and did not have to guess and wonder and pray that a lender would pull the same score that we see, then I would be much happier.

 

how does it benefit the consumer to pull their credit score and say wooo hoo my score is 740! and then think you are qualified to seek certain credit and then find out after you take the score hit for the inquiry that oh sorry your score is actually 690 with our model so you actually arent qualified. This does not provide confidence to the consumer to know where they have to go..... and then to not allow us to see these scores? Or we have to pay for a score that a lender may or may not use if we apply there? how is this logical or beneficial?

 

Yes the system is designed to line their pocket books and to perpetuate the business but thats why i ink it needs regulation. If they are just free to do whatever the hell they want... then that does not help the consumer. But I also do not agree that this would make their offerings less favorable... there are many ways to come up with rules and parameters for lending. I think we need to stop putting so much significanse on a three digit number. Standaridization is the only way to make things more fair and not favor certain people if they happen to get lucky with a random scoring model.

 

Just like Alliant for example... they provide us a creit score when we log in but they dont even use that model when they evaluate our credit worthiness... its basically a deceptive practice. How dare they provide me a score that is basicslly worthless. Especially when these scores are so varying.... and they are based on the same information! The data in our credit report does not change just cause they use a different scoring model. So, why should the scores?

 

So, I have to disagree. i also am not saying there has to be only 1 and no other.... there could be a standard model for each bureau and a standard model for a mortgage application... etc.

[T77125]

 

My TU Walmart & TU My Fico as well as my TU score direct from TU have been pretty much the same since I started mointoring them a couple of years ago. They are usually within 1 to 5 points of one another.

The TU score you get with your Walmart card is not necessarily the one used when applying for credit. I've apped twice and been denied twice, both times they pulled TU but the score given with the deinial letter was based on their own internal scoring system.

 

Again, when ever I have been denied or granted credit wether it be for a CLI from walmart, or a new app the TU score that Walmart gives & the TU score I buy from My fico are withing a couple of points of each other. This has been a trend for me now for 18 months since I was approved for a Walmart card.

 

Up until recently my Experian vantage score was all over the place. At one point it was 768 a few months later 660. Last month it was 740. Checked it today & it's 717.

 

As of today my scores are

 

TU 707 score is from My Fico & Walmart this month they are the same

TU Smart credit is 685

 

EQ 741 (My Fico)

 

EX Vantage score 717

[SomeGuyInCA]

Vantage score is very sensitive to utilization especially when inquires are high. But why do you care? Vantage score is mostly irrelevant.