Fairly interesting read.  Credit scores and the errors within them have been around for years and years, and always will be, even if "Obama the Savior" and his administration try to fix it.  Especially when the process is multiplied by 3.  I couldnt imagine how long it would take if you had an error that appeared on all 3 of your sub scores, because you do have to correct them independently.  Luckily, I've never had to deal with an error.

On the flip side, what I find AMAZING, is how people do not check credit scores at least once a year.  I didnt see a statistic in that story, nor do I know the number, but I would be willing to bet a very large percentage of errors that are found are not seen until you need your score, for a house or a loan, etc.  A lot of heartburn and anxiety could be avoided by monitoring your score at least annually, as opposed to waiting until you need a new car or are trying to move into a new house and then entering in the "credit score lottery".  I have friends at various lending institutions, and they can tell you all kinds of great horror stories of people who blindly come in for financing and then ask them, "Hey, so whats my credit score?"  Now I understand you don't look at your score everyday, that would be kinda silly, but how can you not know what it is before you go and make a major financial decision like that?

I've somewhat considered actually seeing what the costs and advantages (if any) are of subscribing to a credit score monitoring service, but have yet to do it.  Anyone have any experience with one of those?

I don't really understand how "pimp" came to be a verb that describes something that seems closer to cheerleading, but that's a swell summary of a complicated and very important subject. And it's a swell example of how private bureaucracies can screw people as seriously, or even more so, than government ones. Scale, complexity, and opacity are the real risk indicators for an organization, not the simple public-private distinction.

Re Piznit's remarks about keeping an eye on your own credit back yard, this Obama voter has to agree, but probably for other reasons. The higher your wealth and career aspirations, the less of an excuse you have for not taking care of your 'financial hygiene.' My real worry about the increasing pervasiveness of the credit bureau triopoly is that this danged inner-net will end up making screwed up reports matter for folks who've always lived hand-to-mouth and never even opened up a Fingerhut account. If the reports get cheap enough, you could get one run on you for a minimum-wage job app. Heck, that might even already be true.

Most of the monitoring services are about $15 a month and I believe they claim to give you "personalized service" if errors are detected.One can get better deals if they are part of a group membership program. For example I'm a USAA member and we only have to pay about $5.50 a month for monitoring.

Personally speaking I think such things should be government controlled if they are deemed essential to society. The current systems has many inherent conflicts of interest and the agencies charging people to get reports in addition to the cost one must incur to correct any issues that are not their fault is yet another big huge one.

Regarding the question as to what the Obama administration can do about it, well the short answer is plenty to be sure. For example, if he was so motivated, he could nationalize the agencies with an executive order if he wanted. The chance of this happening is about nil but he has the power and fear of that power is what would make the agencies change if they were sure he would wield it.

Whilst it might not be true, I remember reading that if you check your credit score too often it can actually decrease it.  As can not applying for credit a certain number of times a year.

I don't think any American president is going to change the way things are, as I'm pretty certain that much like here in the UK, the Prime Ministers come and go.  The civil service is eternal... and where the power to blatently ignore things resides.

Or auto insurance rates, or homeowner's rates, or a tidy list of other things having essentially nothing to do with your credit rating/score.  And our (usually state) government, the one 'here to help us,' explicitly permits this.

Yes, that's what we need. Obama nationalizing even more of this country.

Perhaps you should e-mail him and suggest it? I'm sure he would be most grateful, especially if he hasn't already thought of it himself. Heck, he might even arrange rent-free housing for you - if you cried just the right way.

@Spartan - That's the sad part.  They already do.  They have just allowed the deck to get stacked overwhelmingly in favor of the lenders over the past 30 years or so.  We used to have things called usery laws which capped consumer-credit interest rates & constrained the extra 'fees' that lenders & banks could unilaterally and retroactively impose as well as limits on their ability to arbitrarily change the terms of credit agreements at the drop of a hat.  Yet, somehow, they all seemed to make adequate amounts of money back then.

@Little-whip - wait till you get the fees for the three little things. It is a double edge penalty.

@Daiwa - I know but most of them, to my knowledge have been taken of the books as part of the reganomics deregulation & trickle-down philosophy practiced by Regan and Bush I & II.

Credit unions have been suffering 'bankification' somewhat since they were allowed to seek members based on geography rather than employer(s). But the good ones are still far better than a bank, at least for those of us who don't have big piles of "Please, how may we help you today" money to leave deposited.

In the last year, I had quite a bit of interaction with one of the larger banks active down here in the South. I've been griping at my CU fairly often in the past several years, mostly because they seemed to be getting to bank-like (they were actually using our money to run TV ads encouraging folks to borrow for frivolous things like vacations). Working with "a real bank" made me appreciate how different it is to be a member, however humble, instead of just another customer.

@ Daiwa - I'm in the "hotly contested" political camp. I'm not faulting the act, I think it was ultimately necessary. I'm just peeved over the many special interest motives and pandering behind the version we got shoved on us via the GOP without any real federal protections for the little guys commonly known as consumers. The word "customer" has some glimmer of respect in its connotation and thusly was tossed in the can along with many other good things by the neocons.

About USAA, I have been a member for going on 20 years and I honestly trust them from top to bottom. It is without a doubt the best such institution of its kind I have ever dealt with. Once I asked for a credit line increase on my credit card since I wanted to buy a house for my sister on it and they upped it to over $40k in minutes. I can't bitch about interest either since I'm plugging away in the 5-7 percent range on average. In all the time I have been a member, maybe three or four times I have inadvertently occurred a fee and every time I have asked them about it they have asked if I wanted it removed and promptly did so. That is class pure and simple. If I had to give only one reason to go into the military USAA membership is it. It is simply the best benefit I have ever received from my near decade of service.

BTW: That link was an excellent read!  karma! 

Sure. I figured they have done so in response to market pressures, regulatory obligations and membership demands. I was not aware they were going to base rates for insurance and auto rates on credit scores however. That does not see right at all in my book but I would think its membership, in general would not have such issues to worry about but then again I may be naïve about the situation.

BTW: No need to thank me but it is appreciated. You should properly thank the taxpayers over 35 years ago. The service was my attempt to give back to society for taking care of me and my sister as children & my mother after she developed cancer. The undergrad and graduate education I received as a result was a pure bonus in my book. For what it is worth, I would go back in a hot minute if asked.

I could swear Clinton claimed credit for that.

Actually I believe the overturning of the usury laws goes back to a supreme court decision which meant that interstate banks were liable only for the laws of the state the were incorporated in, not the states they did business in.

Which suddenly made Montana and Delaware very good states to be incorporated in.

I generally like Thurgood Marshall and the liberal supreme court of his era, but the fact of the matter is they relied on the phrasing of a law that was over a century old at the time to create an entirely new interpretation. Sometimes that makes sense - saying for instance that the 14th amendment has ramifications for equality under the law that had not been previously enforced makes sense to me. Esoteric wording of bank acts hammered out in committee over a century earlier, I'm less inclined to blithely accept.

I recommend to you "The Secret History of the Credit Card" from Frontline