Equifax Security Breach - Execs Sell Stock...

[Ted Striker]

Not everybody uses FICO, but most do. I'm not aware that it's owned by the big three credit bureaus.

FICO is just the new name of Fair Isaac. Like Kentucky Fried Chicken becoming KFC. It's still independent from the credit reporting agencies in terms of ownership, and is publically traded on the big board.

The four of them are more a cartel, than a gang.

In broad strokes, the machinations of FICO are pretty well understood.

True - by those who understand it. Most people I know don't.

[Mustonen]

FICO is just the new name of Fair Isaac. Like Kentucky Fried Chicken becoming KFC. It's still independent from the credit reporting agencies in terms of ownership, and is publically traded on the big board.

The four of them are more a cartel, than a gang.



True - by those who understand it. Most people I know don't.

Right. I've never dug into shareholders or board composition, is what I was saying. Basic point that scoring models != credit bureaus stands, though. They've been calling the model various iterations of FICO since the 90's.

Also, not understanding it is their own damn fault. The info is out there. I can see not knowing because you don't care, but if you don't actually care you're also not bitching about not understanding it.

[Kenny Satch]

Credit scores correlate pretty well to default rates...... we bitch and moan about the system, but as much as it allows lenders to charge higher rates for subprime credit, it lets lenders charge lower rates for good credit. Net interest margin has to cover operating expenses, period.

You make a valid point for people that establish a good credit rating but because some people hit bumps in the road they should be penalized heavily for things that happened say 5 years ago. That's unfair.

Do not interact with these fascist list making companies

It's unavoidable just like Sonata drivers ducking ropes

[Mustonen]

You make a valid point for people that establish a good credit rating but because some people hit bumps in the road they should be penalized heavily for things that happened say 5 years ago. That's unfair.



It's unavoidable just like Sonata drivers ducking ropes

It's all based on models that predict defaults. If you're more likely to default because of something that happened 5 years ago, the model has to take that into account to be any damned good, and the lender should charge for that to protect net yield on those assets.

The truth is, what happened 5 years ago doesn't have a huge impact on predicting today for most people, and the scoring models take that into account. Anything older than 3 or 4 years has a pretty minimal impact, as long as there's current good shit to offset the bad old shit.

[Flyoverland Captive]

[mecc69]

It's all based on models that predict defaults. If you're more likely to default because of something that happened 5 years ago, the model has to take that into account to be any damned good, and the lender should charge for that to protect net yield on those assets.

The truth is, what happened 5 years ago doesn't have a huge impact on predicting today for most people, and the scoring models take that into account. Anything older than 3 or 4 years has a pretty minimal impact, as long as there's current good shit to offset the bad old shit.

This would all be fine if the credit rating agencies had shown an ounce of give a shit when it comes to correcting errors in peoples credit reports and scores. But they don't, so fuck 'em.

Companies that are aggregating huge amounts of personal info about people that can be used to impersonate people (and thus negatively effect their score) should have a huge amount of regulation and huge consequences for failing to protect that information (like jail and revocation of corporate charter level consequences). In today's world, FICO scores and the information used to generate those scores has huge consequences such as preventing people from getting jobs or housing. It isn't just about getting a loan any more.

[Mustonen]

^^ I don't disagree with most of what you said. The bureaus are steaming piles of suck. They have a moral responsibility that they shirk regularly. I wasn't really talking about them.

[neufox47]

Yea, and they generally don't care if they screw up information. Even when wrong they are not liable for adverse consequences.

[Cono Este]

There would be no trading if there was no insider trading. It's a known part of life. Who can keep a secret?


They don't always win either. Sometimes news doesn't hurt stocks and they fuck themselves. They usually do.

[FLS]

Not the Onion?


https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/09/10/0128214/techcrunch-equifax-hack-checking-web-site-is-returning-random-results


An anonymous reader quotes security researcher Brian Krebs:The web site that Equifax advertised as the place where concerned Americans could go to find out whether they were impacted by this breach -- equifaxsecurity2017.com -- iscompletely broken at best, and little more than a stalling tactic or sham at worst. In the early hours after the breach announcement, the site was being flagged by various browsers as a phishing threat. In some cases, people visiting the site were told they were not affected, only to find they received a different answer when they checked the site with the same information on their mobile phones.
TechCrunch has concluded that "the checker site, hosted by Equifax product TrustID, seems to be telling people at random they may have been affected by the data breach." One user reports that entering the same information twice produced two different answers. And ZDNet's security editor reports that even if you just enter Test or 123456, "it says your data has been breached." TechCrunch writes:The assignment seems random. But, nevertheless, they were still asked to continue enrolling in TrustID. What this means is not only are none of the last names tied to your Social Security number, but there's no way to tell if you were really impacted. It's clear Equifax's goal isn't to protect the consumer or bring them vital information. It's to get you to sign up for its revenue-generating product TrustID.

[Ted Striker]

^^^ quelle surprise.

[Ted Striker]

Right. I've never dug into shareholders or board composition, is what I was saying.

Ahh... gotcha. Yeah, neither have I.

Basic point that scoring models != credit bureaus stands, though.

bullets != guns.

(FWIW, I'm not really arguing with you; more of a general rant...)

I agree that scoring models are useful for their originally intended purpose: predicting risk. But the current reality is that the models are skewed to favor the wealthy over the poor, and the leveraged over the debt-free. The risk may equate with the former circumstances, but not the latter. That's more of a frequent flyer discount.

If it ended there, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it, but credit scores have been re-marketed as a predictor of general reliability. For instance, in all but a handful of states, car insurance pricing has a credit score component. Potential landlords run credit checks - even though rent is payed in advance.

It's a system that rewards customers.

Also, not understanding it is their own damn fault. The info is out there. I can see not knowing because you don't care, but if you don't actually care you're also not bitching about not understanding it.

I agree. And I use my knowledge of the system to game it for financial gain, but most people are kinda busy trying to make ends meet.

[mecc69]

So how much are credit scores worth if a large percentage of them suddenly become polluted with false, negative info?

[Mustonen]

So how much are credit scores worth if a large percentage of them suddenly become polluted with false, negative info?

For who? Fight club scenarios notwithstanding, a good credit score is a consumer asset.

Speaking from the perspective of a financial institution who uses credit scores to price assets, lower scores (among other things) mean we price higher. More lower scores shifts where we compete, perhaps, so institutions who are more competitive in subprime lending will do better. We track net yield within credit score ranges, though, so if something truly universal brought all credit scores lower, loan pricing would eventually shift with it as loan losses decreased in those lower credit tiers.

The reality is, it sucks for those affected, and we're a lot more likely to put some higher yielding assets on the books because of the misfortunes of a few rather than suddenly losing track of our entire risk profile. It's not a level playing field, which is part of why credit unions and small local banks are valuable for the marketplace, and also why pisteoff is correct in that it also tilts toward the wealthy and well off. I don't know how to fix it, though.

[Ted Striker]

It's not a level playing field, which is part of why credit unions and small local banks are valuable for the marketplace

This is so true.

My sister in law worked for a small local bank, and internally they said that they were the bank for the "under banked".

[splat]

What's the chances the money will only be paid to the card companies (banks) that have to cover fraudulent losses, ie, eat shit, cause they have their own anti fraud guarantees?

[Mustonen]

In this case, probably nil. When settlements are reached, they're pennies on the dollar and usually rely on a direct link between the compromise and any financial loss. I think the biggest risk here is from fraudulent accounts being opened, not from bad guys using an existing payment account. That's probably too indirect for financial institutions to lay it completely at the feet of equifax in any kind of meaningful class action, but who knows? These class action lawsuits will (minimally) benefit impacted consumers.

I don't know anything about these "anti fraud guarantees," but they sound pretty cool. Tell me more.

[Skidog]

An interesting comment I saw noted that SSN are not supposed to be used as identity cards, yet large financial institutions do anyways. Even power companies etc. The suggestion was to just publish all the numbers.

As for paying 10 bucks to freeze my credit score, why should I have to pay the people that lost my info to protect me? 143 million sitting up credit freezes is not a reasonable solution.

Sounds like a way for them to make money off even this fuckup.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

[FLS]

$70 Billion class action suit in the works.

I want my 2 dollars!...

[Mustonen]

$70 Billion class action suit in the works.

I want my 2 dollars!...

Good luck. They don't have $70B.

[old goat]

$70 Billion class action suit in the works.

I want my 2 dollars!...

Class action suits are such bullshit. My mother was addicting to buying and signing up for bullshit stuff. As the trustee of her estate I keep getting pissant checks for various class action suits against those companies. Nothing over double figures. If I get screwed by the Equifax lawsuit I want to be able to sue them personally, if they're still in business. Hope I get a chance to opt out of the class action suit.

Set up freezes for my wife and I for all three agencies. Experian and Equifax were easy on line (assuming there is actually a freeze), Transunion didn't work online for either of us, automated phone worked for me, had to speak to a rep for my wife's. Hours of calling and computer time. Transunion wanted to know among other things the credit limit of a cc I took out in 1989. Suggestion--if you try to deal with transunion pull your free credit report first and use the info on the report to answer the security questions.

[Ted Striker]

I think the biggest risk here is from fraudulent accounts being opened, not from bad guys using an existing payment account. That's probably too indirect for financial institutions to lay it completely at the feet of equifax in any kind of meaningful class action, but who knows? These class action lawsuits will (minimally) benefit impacted consumers.

Agreed. It's likely going to be a three way contest to see who's the most clever: equifax, criminals, or lawyers.

Plus, most of the fraud (if any) will take time to show up on the individual's credit report. Those timelines may stretch out beyond the initial legal rumblings.

[Ted Striker]

Class action suits are such bullshit...

If I get screwed by the Equifax lawsuit I want to be able to sue them personally, if they're still in business. Hope I get a chance to opt out of the class action suit.

I generally agree, and don't normally sign on, but in this particular case a large enough class has at least the potential to bankrupt the company (that is, if the government doesn't step in). Your personal damages, if any, would be inconsequential by comparison.

$70 Billion class action suit in the works.

I want my 2 dollars!...

I want my pony!

[grubbers]

FYI, it looks like Equifax is no longer charging to place a security freeze on credit reports.

[PNWbrit]

Class action suits are such bullshit.

Good luck suing a major corporation on your own.