While listening to a talk radio show it hit me that all these people (conservative radio and tv host)are spreading paranoia, " Oh my someone is out to get me,oooo)and most of the time their audiences are well off or out in the back woods. That's an interesting mix of people one has everything to lose and the other has nothing to lose yet they both are the most paranoid. I can understand why the well off my be a little paranoid they do have some bling but the back woods folk what are they paranoid about? Oh yeah,the white family and it's future for their kids. These people have nothing to be afraid of nor have anything to hate WE ARE ALL BROKE,we all worried about our families and the future for our children.
So why are these people believing so much what this conservative radio and tv host are saying. All they do is feed fear and fuel fires and try to kept us sparated and get richer by the minute. These people get paid well to spread fear. Imagine what could happen if the conservative fearmongers where put out of business. There would be unity among the people, because the fear reepers will be gone and where there is unity their is strenght.
Also, the paraniod want their guns, I'm all for the right to bear arms but does one have to have so many? I saw a documentry on gun control and the paraniods at the gun shows. These people have arsenals at home. Now is that really nessary? I can see a shotgun and a handgun,however, one can only use one gun at a time. Paranoia sells guns.
Our Country has never been so divided since the civil war. Why is our country so divided? Why are hate groups on the rise? Why are unemployment rate higher among Blacks? Why is Socail Sercurty and Medicare so harmful now? Why are poor people being left behind? Why Why Why I ask myself and the single most cause I can think of is Paranoia.
What can we do about paranioa amongst people pray. The Bible say,"The Lord will bee your confidence and will keep your foot from being snared." Pvb.3:26
We yell this is a Christian country, yet we hate and have not love for one another.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
When is Your Child Grownup?
When can a parent really tell when a child has grown Up? Is it when they reach 18, 19 or 20 (age is nothing but a number)? Are is it when they are at the rebellious age "I'm not a kid anymore!"? At any rate a parent doesn't have a clue as to when there child is an adult. Just like the Mother doesn't know when the baby is coming (well we do now and that's another story for another time) until the moment the water breaks, then its get to the hospital. A parents knowledge of when the child is an adult elude them. There must be some kind of natural event like the water breaking announcing the arrival of the baby.
Some children are born knowing their adult self for ex. a baby is place in front of a piano and begins to play, a child knowing how numbers work, or to paint a picture. For some of us it would take a life time to achieve,yet they know. Most people believe this is being born with a talent I believe it is being born with the adult self. These children, parents most be in tune with their little genus.
When I was a child my first acknowledgement of my adult self was knowing the greater spirit in me God. I had many experiences with God before I could read. So when I learn to read the first book I was give was The Bible Story book. Also I have a love for words so I was writing poems. My Mother never notice so one got away from Me.
Other children know when they are adult by stages. These children know they go to school, they find a job or go to college and then find a job, find a partner get married, have or not have children go on vacation, and work until they retire. That account for most children. Generally this is what ALL Parents expect from their Adult children.
Then You have the rebels. The ones that I feel have a hard time with the adult change. Even though they yell, "I'm not a kid anymore" they are not. They don't know when their biological clock went off but they know it did and have a hard time with change. So teach them breathing techniques.
Puberty we all go through, but each one is unique as each child is unique. We all have some problems in becoming adults so the best thing a parent can do for their child is teach them how to breathe early in life. The other thing is teach them how to love the child within.
By Latrall Simon
June17,2011
Some children are born knowing their adult self for ex. a baby is place in front of a piano and begins to play, a child knowing how numbers work, or to paint a picture. For some of us it would take a life time to achieve,yet they know. Most people believe this is being born with a talent I believe it is being born with the adult self. These children, parents most be in tune with their little genus.
When I was a child my first acknowledgement of my adult self was knowing the greater spirit in me God. I had many experiences with God before I could read. So when I learn to read the first book I was give was The Bible Story book. Also I have a love for words so I was writing poems. My Mother never notice so one got away from Me.
Other children know when they are adult by stages. These children know they go to school, they find a job or go to college and then find a job, find a partner get married, have or not have children go on vacation, and work until they retire. That account for most children. Generally this is what ALL Parents expect from their Adult children.
Then You have the rebels. The ones that I feel have a hard time with the adult change. Even though they yell, "I'm not a kid anymore" they are not. They don't know when their biological clock went off but they know it did and have a hard time with change. So teach them breathing techniques.
Puberty we all go through, but each one is unique as each child is unique. We all have some problems in becoming adults so the best thing a parent can do for their child is teach them how to breathe early in life. The other thing is teach them how to love the child within.
By Latrall Simon
June17,2011
In bad taste?
Jun 16, 1:43 pm ET
Mitt Romney to voters: ‘I’m also unemployed’
By Holly Bailey
It's a line that's sure to come back to haunt Mitt Romney.
At a campaign event in Florida today, the 2012 Republican frontrunner met with a group of unemployed workers who talked about their challenges looking for jobs in the struggling economy.
After they concluded, the former Massachusetts governor suggested he should tell his own "story," according to the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny.
"I'm also unemployed," Romney replied, with a smile.
The comment was clearly meant to hint jokingly at Romney's bid for the presidency, but it was also an odd statement coming from a candidate whose financial situation is so far removed from his audience's. A former head of Bain Capital, Romney is said to be worth at least $200 million--wealth that has enabled him to concentrate on running for president full time for the better part of the last five years.
But Romney's audience was in on the joke. According to Zeleny, the group "chuckled" along with Romney, with one man asking, "Are you on LinkedIn?"
The former governor replied, "I'm networking. I have my sight on a particular job."
Holly Bailey, Senior Political Reporter
Rachel Rose Hartman, Political Reporter
Editor: Chris Lehmann
Yahoo! News Network
Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy
About Our Ads
Terms of Service
Copyright/IP Policy
Mitt Romney to voters: ‘I’m also unemployed’
By Holly Bailey
It's a line that's sure to come back to haunt Mitt Romney.
At a campaign event in Florida today, the 2012 Republican frontrunner met with a group of unemployed workers who talked about their challenges looking for jobs in the struggling economy.
After they concluded, the former Massachusetts governor suggested he should tell his own "story," according to the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny.
"I'm also unemployed," Romney replied, with a smile.
The comment was clearly meant to hint jokingly at Romney's bid for the presidency, but it was also an odd statement coming from a candidate whose financial situation is so far removed from his audience's. A former head of Bain Capital, Romney is said to be worth at least $200 million--wealth that has enabled him to concentrate on running for president full time for the better part of the last five years.
But Romney's audience was in on the joke. According to Zeleny, the group "chuckled" along with Romney, with one man asking, "Are you on LinkedIn?"
The former governor replied, "I'm networking. I have my sight on a particular job."
Holly Bailey, Senior Political Reporter
Rachel Rose Hartman, Political Reporter
Editor: Chris Lehmann
Yahoo! News Network
Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy
About Our Ads
Terms of Service
Copyright/IP Policy
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Meteor Nights
2011 Meteor Showers
The next meteor shower is the Perseids on the night of August 13.
Name
Date of Peak
Moon Quadrantids night of January 3
Lyrids night of April 21 Rises after midnight
Eta Aquarids night of May 5 Sets in early evening
Perseids night of August 13
Full Draconids night of October 8 Sets around midnight
Orionids night of October 21 Rises after midnight
Leonids night of November 17 Rises around midnight
Geminids night of December 13
http://stardate.org/nightsky/meteors
The next meteor shower is the Perseids on the night of August 13.
Name
Date of Peak
Moon Quadrantids night of January 3
Lyrids night of April 21 Rises after midnight
Eta Aquarids night of May 5 Sets in early evening
Perseids night of August 13
Full Draconids night of October 8 Sets around midnight
Orionids night of October 21 Rises after midnight
Leonids night of November 17 Rises around midnight
Geminids night of December 13
http://stardate.org/nightsky/meteors
Bloodthirsty Dogs
Bloodthirsty pack of dogs take out 350-lb. llama
By Liz Goodwin
Local law enforcement officials in Northeast Washington state are worried about a pack of dogs that have attacked at least 100 animals since March. The pack, they fear, is now "killing for fun."
The wild dogs took out a 350-lb llama on Tuesday night, the latest in a string of attacks that have left more than 100 goats and other farm animals dead in the ranching community of Stevens County. The dogs, whose breeds are so far unknown, emerge only at night, but residents in their predatory range in the valleys and mountains near Spokane are afraid the canines may be getting bolder.
"I think they are capable of do anything at this point," Deputy Sheriff Keith Cochran told KXLY4, adding that he's worried the animals may just be preying on area creatures for the sport of it. Undersheriff Lavonne Webb told the AP the pack is " killing for the sake of killing."
"They are doing it to be cruel, they're bloodthirsty," resident Temma Davis told the station. "It's like 'Cujo.' "
Webb told the AP it's possible some of the four or five dogs in the pack aren't wild and go home to their owners during the day. One resident managed to snap a photograph of the pack, above.
(Dogs: Courtesy of the Stevens County Sheriff's Office/AP)
By Liz Goodwin
Local law enforcement officials in Northeast Washington state are worried about a pack of dogs that have attacked at least 100 animals since March. The pack, they fear, is now "killing for fun."
The wild dogs took out a 350-lb llama on Tuesday night, the latest in a string of attacks that have left more than 100 goats and other farm animals dead in the ranching community of Stevens County. The dogs, whose breeds are so far unknown, emerge only at night, but residents in their predatory range in the valleys and mountains near Spokane are afraid the canines may be getting bolder.
"I think they are capable of do anything at this point," Deputy Sheriff Keith Cochran told KXLY4, adding that he's worried the animals may just be preying on area creatures for the sport of it. Undersheriff Lavonne Webb told the AP the pack is " killing for the sake of killing."
"They are doing it to be cruel, they're bloodthirsty," resident Temma Davis told the station. "It's like 'Cujo.' "
Webb told the AP it's possible some of the four or five dogs in the pack aren't wild and go home to their owners during the day. One resident managed to snap a photograph of the pack, above.
(Dogs: Courtesy of the Stevens County Sheriff's Office/AP)
Funding for AIDS
Dear Governor Scott:
We are writing out of deep concern regarding a proposal currently income under consideration by the Florida Department of Health to lower the eligibility requirements for the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).
Since its establishment in 1992, the Elton John AIDS Foundation (EJAF) has invested significant funding in HIV/AIDS prevention, stigma reduction, treatment, care, and associated services for those living with HIV/AIDS in Florida. Furthermore, as one of the largest HIV/AIDS grant making organizations in the United States, we are intently focused on the worsening AIDS epidemic in the American South. We believe the proposal under consideration by the Department of Health would have a deadly, costly, and widespread impact in Florida and across the South.
As you know, over 9,600 low-income, HIV-positive Floridians currently rely on the ADAP program to receive life-saving antiretroviral medication. Because this program is severely underfunded, some 3,900 additional people of limited means in your state are on a waiting list to receive treatment they cannot afford, yet need to survive. Florida currently has the largest ADAP waiting list in the entire nation.
Against this troubling backdrop, the Florida Department of Health is considering a drastic reduction in eligibility for the state's ADAP program. This cost-saving measure would exclude all but the state's poorest residents from ADAP - those earning less than $21,780 per year. If this measure is enacted, over 1,600 people who currently receive ADAP assistance would be cut from the program, and those on the waiting list would have no hope of receiving medication through ADAP.
Given that life-saving HIV/AIDS medications can cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per year, this proposal would put these low-income individuals with HIV/AIDS in the untenable position of being completely unable to afford treatment for an incurable, communicable disease. Also, the people currently participating in the program who would lose funding for their HIV treatment would potentially be at risk to develop dangerous, drug-resistant strains of HIV in their bodies if forced off their medications.
With treatment, these Floridians can lead healthy, productive lives. Without it, they will slowly die.
Moreover, lack of treatment for those living with HIV has vast implications for the state and the nation at large. First, reducing the size of Florida's ADAP program might save money in the near-term, but it will quickly become more expensive for the state in the medium- and long-term, as those denied treatment by ADAP become ill and require emergency room and hospital care. Second, denying treatment to low-income Floridians would exacerbate the state and region's worsening AIDS epidemic. A recent, groundbreaking study by the National Institutes of Health demonstrated that people living with HIV who receive antiretroviral treatment are 96% less likely to pass the virus on to their uninfected partners. Therefore, denying HIV treatment to low-income people not only harms their health and increases the incidence of drug-resistant HIV, it also makes it more likely that these people can and will spread the disease to others.
For these reasons, we are writing to join the hundreds of Floridians who have bravely stepped forward in public hearings to speak out against the Department of Health's ill-conceived proposal. We also echo and applaud Senator Bill Nelson, who has written to you and President Obama about the unacceptable lack of funding for ADAP in Florida and across the nation. We stand in solidarity with our grantees and partners in Florida who are deeply concerned about the tremendous harm this proposal would cause in the communities they serve.
Governor Scott, we urge you, as a leader with a distinguished career in the health care sector, to demand that the Florida Department of Health rescind this harmful, inhumane, and fiscally-ineffective proposal. We hope and trust that you will demonstrate national leadership on this issue to safeguard the health and lives of your citizens.
Sincerely,
Sir Elton John, Founder
David Furnish, Chairman
Elton John AIDS Foundation
We are writing out of deep concern regarding a proposal currently income under consideration by the Florida Department of Health to lower the eligibility requirements for the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).
Since its establishment in 1992, the Elton John AIDS Foundation (EJAF) has invested significant funding in HIV/AIDS prevention, stigma reduction, treatment, care, and associated services for those living with HIV/AIDS in Florida. Furthermore, as one of the largest HIV/AIDS grant making organizations in the United States, we are intently focused on the worsening AIDS epidemic in the American South. We believe the proposal under consideration by the Department of Health would have a deadly, costly, and widespread impact in Florida and across the South.
As you know, over 9,600 low-income, HIV-positive Floridians currently rely on the ADAP program to receive life-saving antiretroviral medication. Because this program is severely underfunded, some 3,900 additional people of limited means in your state are on a waiting list to receive treatment they cannot afford, yet need to survive. Florida currently has the largest ADAP waiting list in the entire nation.
Against this troubling backdrop, the Florida Department of Health is considering a drastic reduction in eligibility for the state's ADAP program. This cost-saving measure would exclude all but the state's poorest residents from ADAP - those earning less than $21,780 per year. If this measure is enacted, over 1,600 people who currently receive ADAP assistance would be cut from the program, and those on the waiting list would have no hope of receiving medication through ADAP.
Given that life-saving HIV/AIDS medications can cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per year, this proposal would put these low-income individuals with HIV/AIDS in the untenable position of being completely unable to afford treatment for an incurable, communicable disease. Also, the people currently participating in the program who would lose funding for their HIV treatment would potentially be at risk to develop dangerous, drug-resistant strains of HIV in their bodies if forced off their medications.
With treatment, these Floridians can lead healthy, productive lives. Without it, they will slowly die.
Moreover, lack of treatment for those living with HIV has vast implications for the state and the nation at large. First, reducing the size of Florida's ADAP program might save money in the near-term, but it will quickly become more expensive for the state in the medium- and long-term, as those denied treatment by ADAP become ill and require emergency room and hospital care. Second, denying treatment to low-income Floridians would exacerbate the state and region's worsening AIDS epidemic. A recent, groundbreaking study by the National Institutes of Health demonstrated that people living with HIV who receive antiretroviral treatment are 96% less likely to pass the virus on to their uninfected partners. Therefore, denying HIV treatment to low-income people not only harms their health and increases the incidence of drug-resistant HIV, it also makes it more likely that these people can and will spread the disease to others.
For these reasons, we are writing to join the hundreds of Floridians who have bravely stepped forward in public hearings to speak out against the Department of Health's ill-conceived proposal. We also echo and applaud Senator Bill Nelson, who has written to you and President Obama about the unacceptable lack of funding for ADAP in Florida and across the nation. We stand in solidarity with our grantees and partners in Florida who are deeply concerned about the tremendous harm this proposal would cause in the communities they serve.
Governor Scott, we urge you, as a leader with a distinguished career in the health care sector, to demand that the Florida Department of Health rescind this harmful, inhumane, and fiscally-ineffective proposal. We hope and trust that you will demonstrate national leadership on this issue to safeguard the health and lives of your citizens.
Sincerely,
Sir Elton John, Founder
David Furnish, Chairman
Elton John AIDS Foundation
Should Cheerleader cheer for Her attacker?
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/texas_cheerleader/?r_by=22009-3958520-trlLvzx&rc=confemail
Your Credit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------New Risk Based Score Breaks the Trust of Consumers
Equifax, Experian and Transunion have begun limited marketing of a new consumer credit scoring algorithm to Risk Based Lenders. According to David Rubinger of Equifax, the planned nationwide rollout to Risk Based Lenders is scheduled for July, and will be followed, approximately 9 months later, with the public disclosure of these scores to consumers.
An algorithm is a mathematical formula that is written to assign value to specific data in order to attain a final score. Risk Based Lenders are financial institutions that lend money based upon a consumer's credit history and the consumer's ability and historical willingness to repay a loan. These types of lenders cover the full range of financial institutions lending money for credit cards, auto loans, unsecured loans and mortgage loans.
David Rubinger, the national marketing contact for Equifax, explained "approximately one year ago, the analytical managers for the 3 credit bureaus got together for the purposes of addressing variations within the present scoring models in use. Under the current system, the three major credit-reporting agencies use three different algorithms that produce three different and unique scores, regardless of the data being scored. The primary issue to be addressed was how they could create a solution for Risk Based Lenders who wanted fewer variations within the credit scoring models they were using to make lending decisions."
The solution for the three agencies was to create a single algorithm that would produce a more "predictive score" by creating a single variable in scoring, which would be the data. To do this, they came up with a solution that involved creating an independent company called VantageScore, LLC. Each credit-reporting agency would own an equal share in the company, and purchase a license to use and sell the resulting scores to risk based lenders under the VantageScore service mark. The hard part was creating the uniform scoring that the three credit-reporting agencies were attempting to design and sell.
To achieve as close a model as possible, the three credit agencies tested the initial base algorithm on 15 million active credit files. Throughout the testing process, changes were made to the algorithm as were needed to create a more stable scoring model until the finished product created an acceptable level of score variance in the finished product.
By creating an independent LLC company, the three credit reporting agencies are now able to offer a single product that has only one variable, the data being scored. Where the credit information reported is the same, the score for a consumer file will be the same, regardless of whether the score comes from Transunion, Experian, or Equifax. Where the credit information is different, the variations in the actual score will be significantly reduced.
Under the new VantageScore product, the three agencies decided to change the scoring formula from its current 450 to 850 scoring range to a new 501 to 990 range. When asked about why they would do this, Rubinger responded, "The new scoring model is to help consumers better understand their credit score. By basing it on a grading scale used throughout the K through 12 school system, consumers can look at their score and know exactly what they have". Unfortunately for Risk Based Lenders, the new scoring model will require they spend thousands of dollars in updating software to incorporate the new scoring model.
When asked about some of the negative aspects of the change, Mr. Rubinger declined to answer any questions.
The initial question that Down Payment Solutions has relates to anti-trust laws and where the congressional oversight is. As we only have three major Credit Reporting Agencies, how is it they can bypass any oversight to create an LLC company in order to offer a single uniform product in which all can sell, with the goal appearing to be the complete replacement of the present day independent scoring algorithms?
When contacted for comment on this matter, the Department of Justice - Anti-Trust division - declined comment and suggested consumers who have concerns should e-mail them at antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov. Neither Senator Bill Nelson (D - FL), Senator Mel Martinez (R - FL), Congressman Jim Davis (D-FL) or Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R- FL) offices would offer any comments for this article.
Jan Helder of the Helder Law Firm called the formation of a LLC by the three Credit Reporting Agencies "shady, at best" and advised that, unfortunately for consumers, they "cannot file an anti-trust suit until they have experienced a financial loss resulting from the new VantageScore credit scoring system, and then they will have to prove financial loss in court." This will be well after low to moderate-income families, and the businesses dependent upon them, have felt the tightening of credit nationwide.
"The new VantageScore model creates a significant financial risk to consumers in their ability to obtain affordable financing," according to Dwayne Singletary of Allstate Mortgage and Loan Corp in Tampa, Florida. "Many risk-based lenders in the mortgage industry use all three credit-reporting scores--also known as a Tri-Merged Credit Report--and have programs that allow them to use the credit-reporting agency that has the highest credit score. A reduction in that higher score will most likely result in home buyers needing more money out of pocket for a down payment, or require them to pay a higher rate of interest." under the VantageScore model, whether refinancing or purchasing.
In the installment and revolving credit market, most risk-based lenders do not use the scores from all three reporting agencies. Rather, each lender selects the reporting agency that best fits their type of borrower. A reduction in any one score across any credit-reporting agency, via adoption of the VantageScore algorithm, could result in consumers being unable to obtain credit, or consumers paying a significantly higher rate of interest to borrow the same money tomorrow, versus what they would pay under the current separate credit-scoring models.
Rubinger contends the new scoring model is designed to help consumers better understand their score. However, given the thousands of dollars in financial costs that will be incurred by Risk Based Lenders in updating programming, it leaves the impression the new scoring model may actually be designed to mislead consumers into believing the new VantageScore system actually improves their credit scores.
Under the current system, in theory, if a consumer has a Transunion credit score of 600, then potentially under the new VantageScore model, they could have a score as high as 720. This certainly would go a long way towards silencing a potential consumer backlash if someone with challenged credit sees a dramatic increase in their credit score. This is potentially misleading, and may be the reason for the delay in consumers having access to their new VantageScore credit score for any given credit-reporting agency.
At present, it has not been disclosed how consumers will know what model they are being scored under. As consumers apply for credit, most will assume they are being scored under existing Credit Models, when in fact; they may have been scored under the VantageScore system if a particular financial institution adopted it.
Consumers who are concerned about the potential implications that VantageScore has on their financial future should contact the DOJ - Anti-Trust Division. In addition, we strongly encourage you to contact your Congressman via www.congress.org.
Down Payment Solutions believes that before this new Credit Scoring System is implemented, both the DOJ and Congress have some over sight as to how, when and if Transunion, Experian and Equifax, can implement this type of product in order to protect every American consumer and the businesses dependent upon them.
Author: George Chaney, President, Down Payment Solutions, Inc. http://www.downpaymentsolutions.com
VantageScore is a Service Mark of VantageScore LLC
Home Buyer Education:
Mortgage Insurance
Copyright 2004 - 2009 U.S. #TX0006199019 - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy/Terms of Use
Equifax, Experian and Transunion have begun limited marketing of a new consumer credit scoring algorithm to Risk Based Lenders. According to David Rubinger of Equifax, the planned nationwide rollout to Risk Based Lenders is scheduled for July, and will be followed, approximately 9 months later, with the public disclosure of these scores to consumers.
An algorithm is a mathematical formula that is written to assign value to specific data in order to attain a final score. Risk Based Lenders are financial institutions that lend money based upon a consumer's credit history and the consumer's ability and historical willingness to repay a loan. These types of lenders cover the full range of financial institutions lending money for credit cards, auto loans, unsecured loans and mortgage loans.
David Rubinger, the national marketing contact for Equifax, explained "approximately one year ago, the analytical managers for the 3 credit bureaus got together for the purposes of addressing variations within the present scoring models in use. Under the current system, the three major credit-reporting agencies use three different algorithms that produce three different and unique scores, regardless of the data being scored. The primary issue to be addressed was how they could create a solution for Risk Based Lenders who wanted fewer variations within the credit scoring models they were using to make lending decisions."
The solution for the three agencies was to create a single algorithm that would produce a more "predictive score" by creating a single variable in scoring, which would be the data. To do this, they came up with a solution that involved creating an independent company called VantageScore, LLC. Each credit-reporting agency would own an equal share in the company, and purchase a license to use and sell the resulting scores to risk based lenders under the VantageScore service mark. The hard part was creating the uniform scoring that the three credit-reporting agencies were attempting to design and sell.
To achieve as close a model as possible, the three credit agencies tested the initial base algorithm on 15 million active credit files. Throughout the testing process, changes were made to the algorithm as were needed to create a more stable scoring model until the finished product created an acceptable level of score variance in the finished product.
By creating an independent LLC company, the three credit reporting agencies are now able to offer a single product that has only one variable, the data being scored. Where the credit information reported is the same, the score for a consumer file will be the same, regardless of whether the score comes from Transunion, Experian, or Equifax. Where the credit information is different, the variations in the actual score will be significantly reduced.
Under the new VantageScore product, the three agencies decided to change the scoring formula from its current 450 to 850 scoring range to a new 501 to 990 range. When asked about why they would do this, Rubinger responded, "The new scoring model is to help consumers better understand their credit score. By basing it on a grading scale used throughout the K through 12 school system, consumers can look at their score and know exactly what they have". Unfortunately for Risk Based Lenders, the new scoring model will require they spend thousands of dollars in updating software to incorporate the new scoring model.
When asked about some of the negative aspects of the change, Mr. Rubinger declined to answer any questions.
The initial question that Down Payment Solutions has relates to anti-trust laws and where the congressional oversight is. As we only have three major Credit Reporting Agencies, how is it they can bypass any oversight to create an LLC company in order to offer a single uniform product in which all can sell, with the goal appearing to be the complete replacement of the present day independent scoring algorithms?
When contacted for comment on this matter, the Department of Justice - Anti-Trust division - declined comment and suggested consumers who have concerns should e-mail them at antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov. Neither Senator Bill Nelson (D - FL), Senator Mel Martinez (R - FL), Congressman Jim Davis (D-FL) or Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R- FL) offices would offer any comments for this article.
Jan Helder of the Helder Law Firm called the formation of a LLC by the three Credit Reporting Agencies "shady, at best" and advised that, unfortunately for consumers, they "cannot file an anti-trust suit until they have experienced a financial loss resulting from the new VantageScore credit scoring system, and then they will have to prove financial loss in court." This will be well after low to moderate-income families, and the businesses dependent upon them, have felt the tightening of credit nationwide.
"The new VantageScore model creates a significant financial risk to consumers in their ability to obtain affordable financing," according to Dwayne Singletary of Allstate Mortgage and Loan Corp in Tampa, Florida. "Many risk-based lenders in the mortgage industry use all three credit-reporting scores--also known as a Tri-Merged Credit Report--and have programs that allow them to use the credit-reporting agency that has the highest credit score. A reduction in that higher score will most likely result in home buyers needing more money out of pocket for a down payment, or require them to pay a higher rate of interest." under the VantageScore model, whether refinancing or purchasing.
In the installment and revolving credit market, most risk-based lenders do not use the scores from all three reporting agencies. Rather, each lender selects the reporting agency that best fits their type of borrower. A reduction in any one score across any credit-reporting agency, via adoption of the VantageScore algorithm, could result in consumers being unable to obtain credit, or consumers paying a significantly higher rate of interest to borrow the same money tomorrow, versus what they would pay under the current separate credit-scoring models.
Rubinger contends the new scoring model is designed to help consumers better understand their score. However, given the thousands of dollars in financial costs that will be incurred by Risk Based Lenders in updating programming, it leaves the impression the new scoring model may actually be designed to mislead consumers into believing the new VantageScore system actually improves their credit scores.
Under the current system, in theory, if a consumer has a Transunion credit score of 600, then potentially under the new VantageScore model, they could have a score as high as 720. This certainly would go a long way towards silencing a potential consumer backlash if someone with challenged credit sees a dramatic increase in their credit score. This is potentially misleading, and may be the reason for the delay in consumers having access to their new VantageScore credit score for any given credit-reporting agency.
At present, it has not been disclosed how consumers will know what model they are being scored under. As consumers apply for credit, most will assume they are being scored under existing Credit Models, when in fact; they may have been scored under the VantageScore system if a particular financial institution adopted it.
Consumers who are concerned about the potential implications that VantageScore has on their financial future should contact the DOJ - Anti-Trust Division. In addition, we strongly encourage you to contact your Congressman via www.congress.org.
Down Payment Solutions believes that before this new Credit Scoring System is implemented, both the DOJ and Congress have some over sight as to how, when and if Transunion, Experian and Equifax, can implement this type of product in order to protect every American consumer and the businesses dependent upon them.
Author: George Chaney, President, Down Payment Solutions, Inc. http://www.downpaymentsolutions.com
VantageScore is a Service Mark of VantageScore LLC
Home Buyer Education:
Mortgage Insurance
Copyright 2004 - 2009 U.S. #TX0006199019 - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy/Terms of Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)