WSJ: Agencies to begin excluding certain liens and judgments from reports

[DeadMoneyDrew]

Credit Reports to Exclude Certain Negative Data, Boosting FICO Scores https://www.wsj.com/articles/credit-reports-to-exclude-certain-negative-information-boosting-fico-scores-1489338002

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, the three major credit reporting agencies will begin removing certain tax liens and judgement records from reports beginning around July 1st.

 

From the article:

Many tax liens and civil judgments soon will be removed from people’s credit reports, the latest in a series of moves to omit negative information from these financial scorecards. The development could help boost credit scores for millions of consumers, but could pose risks for lenders.

 

The three major credit-reporting firms— Equifax, Experian and TransUnion—recently decided to remove tax-lien and civil-judgment data starting around July 1, according to the Consumer Data Industry Association, a trade group that represents them. The firms will do so if that data don’t include a complete list of a person’s name, address, as well as a social security number or date of birth.

 

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

Derp, didn't notice at first that the Wall Street Journal article is behind a paywall. Here's one from the Chicago Tribune.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/ct-re-0312-kenneth-harney-20170308-column.html

[TheVig]

All the more reason to freeze the lesser known CRA's if they don't follow along with the big 3.

 

I can see the average consumer who is totally unaware there is other sources to look for judgements and leins.

[DeadMoneyDrew]

All the more reason to freeze the lesser known CRA's if they don't follow along with the big 3.

 

I can see the average consumer who is totally unaware there is other sources to look for judgements and leins.

Other than LexisNexis, which agencies can be frozen?

[StarkRaven$]

"The firms will do so if that data don't include a complete list of a person's name, address, as well as a social security number or date of birth."

 

This is good to know.8

[IndyPoolPlayer]

 

All the more reason to freeze the lesser known CRA's if they don't follow along with the big 3.

 

I can see the average consumer who is totally unaware there is other sources to look for judgements and leins.

Other than LexisNexis, which agencies can be frozen?

 

ARS, IDA (Sagestream), TheWorkNumber (formerly TALX)

[ICANHASMUNY?]

https://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=541303

[cv91915]

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

"The firms will do so if that data don't include a complete list of a person's name, address, as well as a social security number or date of birth."

 

This is good to know.8

 

it's because the folks who have been actually collecting the data for LN from the court systems have been utilizing online records ,

 

which doesn't always have the DOB , and never has the SS # online

 

old days, reporters used to cull actual paper copies which had that information...

 

look at LN jobs - there's a number of job descriptions; some are home based, looking up police/court / property title records

[mendelssohn]

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

[TampaDude]

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

Sounds like the credit reporting version of the ACA.

[StarkRaven$]

Are these changes for paid liens?

[TheVig]

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

+1000

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

[cv91915]

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

 

Someone wise once said, "if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation."

[gregcjackson]

Here's 1 data point: Deleted 5 public records and scores dropped 26 points. Don't think you have to worry that much about score inflation.

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

 

Government liens have absolutely nothing to do with an extension of credit to the "debtor."

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

 

 

 

Precisely.

[cv91915]

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

 

Government liens have absolutely nothing to do with an extension of credit to the "debtor."

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

 

 

 

Precisely.

 

 

I said if a fact is predictive of default it should be included and scored. I didn't say anything about the extension of credit.

 

I don't know if government liens are, or are not, predictive.

 

Make the case with evidence that they are not useful in determining credit risk, and I'll warm to the argument.

Edited March 20, 2017 by cv91915

[mendelssohn]

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

 

Government liens have absolutely nothing to do with an extension of credit to the "debtor."

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

 

 

 

Precisely.

 

 

I said if a fact is predictive of default it should be included and scored. I didn't say anything about the extension of credit.

 

I don't know if government liens are, or are not, predictive.

 

Make the case with evidence that they are not useful in determining credit risk, and I'll warm to the argument.

 

 

That was my point as well. If they are predictive of default risk, they should be included. If not, excluding them increases the cost of credit for everyone.

[mendelssohn]

Ttt since new threads on this keep showing up.

[JDK83]

 

 

They originate from government bs like back taxes.

 

 

I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't affect me.

 

But, why are back taxes bs?

[DeadMoneyDrew]

Ttt since new threads on this keep showing up.

There have been at least four other threads started and subsequently closed. I guess that makes me famous? Or quick on the draw? Or something?

[ICANHASMUNY?]

something....

 

LOL

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

 

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

 

Government liens have absolutely nothing to do with an extension of credit to the "debtor."

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

 

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

 

 

 

Precisely.

 

 

I said if a fact is predictive of default it should be included and scored. I didn't say anything about the extension of credit.

 

I don't know if government liens are, or are not, predictive.

 

Make the case with evidence that they are not useful in determining credit risk, and I'll warm to the argument.

 

 

That was my point as well. If they are predictive of default risk, they should be included. If not, excluding them increases the cost of credit for everyone.

 

 

 

So you're saying that they should be included either way, then?

[mendelssohn]

 

 

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

 

Government liens have absolutely nothing to do with an extension of credit to the "debtor."

 

 

IMO, if a fact is predictive of credit risk, it should be included and scored.

 

I haven't seen any analysis that attempts to show whether or not these types of negatives are predicative of a consumer defaulting on a credit obligation.

I agree. I'm not sure how excluding them is going to do anything but raise the overall cost of credit across the board.

 

Many have nothing to do with credit transactions. They originate from government bs like parking and traffic tickets, back taxes, etc.

 

Precisely.

I said if a fact is predictive of default it should be included and scored. I didn't say anything about the extension of credit.

 

I don't know if government liens are, or are not, predictive.

 

Make the case with evidence that they are not useful in determining credit risk, and I'll warm to the argument.

That was my point as well. If they are predictive of default risk, they should be included. If not, excluding them increases the cost of credit for everyone.

 

So you're saying that they should be included either way, then?

No. Only if they are predictive of risk.

 

I tend to think they are, but have seen no data to show why they should be excluded based on prediction of risk.