I don't think they send out wrong reports on purpose, but they don't have a lot invested in making sure their reports are accurate and that's a problem.

I agree.

Why do you think credit companies are sending out the wrong credit report? What's that based on? Error? Malevolence? Profit-seeking?

I think it's mostly entropy and a very imperfect appeals system. If you challenge an item on your report, then the credit reporting agency goes to the source of the bad item, asks if it is valid, and if they say yes, then it stands. Where this gets very messy is when things go into collections. I've had more than one situation on my reports where one bad debt turned up half a dozen different times. The original creditor, and then 5 different collection agencies. I resolved the debt with the original creditor but the collection agencies kept leaving bad marks. When I challenge it, the credit agency goes to the collection agencies to ask if the report is still vaild, they say yes, and then it stands. Part of the system are self policed, and it doesn't always work well.

I think part of what Sean is saying about the opacity of the system is the criteria that makes your score go up and down is not clear. Yes, you can see a complete report, and see all of the marks, but how that equates to a score of 700 or 605 isn't very clear. Also the things that will make a score move seem counterintuitive. I have a number of credit cards that have no balance on them. They have a high interest rate, and I will never use them. I'd prefer to just close the accounts so that there is a lower risk of someone getting into those accounts. The problem is that closing those accounts would actually lower my credit score.

A similar thing is shopping for a car. When I have purchased a car, the dealer sends out my information for financing offers. Multiple reports get run, then I choose one. The multiple reports have a slight downward pressure on my score, but it's all very unclear how exactly it happens.

I think consumers would like to have it clearly spelled out how the scores are calculated.

You're misreading me, Noise. I'm just asking why the credit company would send HR one credit report and then send me a different one. Nothing to do with why the credit report would be accurate in the first place. That's a whole different argument.

I'm just saying they're bound by legislation to be traceably consistent. Right? Feh. That's so...subjective.

but your position seems to be that my position is so laughably idiotic as to be mocked off the stage

Can you point to the places where I've stated or implied laughable or idiotic or mocking? Because I really wasn't feeling the level of vitriol in the response you deleted--I'm assuming that you were sniping against me not yourself.

You said the following:

how can you know you were sent the exact same report as whoever requested it. There is no guarantee in the system that this is the case

I disagree. And I don't understand the basis of your argument. I don't see either motivation or evidence here. That's all I'm asking for.

You can't get a security clearance, work in the financial sector, or pass the ethics requirements of many professional occupations (lawyer, CPA, etc.) with lousy credit and unpaid debt. Any position that carries fiduciary responsibility usually has good credit as a requirement of the job.

My personal scores have been checked by potential customers, in addition to my corporate credit. Medical practices don't want to spend a big chunk of change with a company they don't think is sound. And since we are closely held family corporation they check us too. It sucks, but there it is.

Because I really wasn't feeling the level of vitriol in the response you deleted--I'm assuming that you were sniping against me not yourself.

If I have misread you, then I have misread you, but I was responding to a perceived level of vitriol aimed at me. Something I get almost every time you and I interact.

I am clearly misreading things, but I have a hard time dealing with you when you come at me. All I get is hostility to anything I have to say, and utter disrespect for me.

I'm sorry, but I cannot point to anything specific, so I am willing to accept that it is just me wildly misreading the things you say to me.

As to this specific assertion you are attacking:

how can you know you were sent the exact same report as whoever requested it. There is no guarantee in the system that this is the case

I have since tried to clarify and correct my position, and you are harping on a comment from before the clarification and correction, so that is probably adding to my sense that you are not actually interested in a conversation with me.

I don't know how to defend myself against this attack, because I have stepped away from that position.

Sean, I'm not attacking you. It is not about you. It is about a position you have, and my lack of understanding of it.

If you do think there's a history or practice of sending out different credit reports, I'm interested in why. I haven't understood anything to clear up that point. Since you no longer believe or wish to defend that it happens, then it's all good. I missed the part where you retracted it, that's all.

Still, if you can find where I went ad hominem or hostile (especially if it's different from how I treat everyone, I know I swear and bristle a lot, but I did think that *was* all about me, and all a dressy persona, and not directed at people except when I'm not debating, because then it's fun (thank you, msbelle, for always being an available target)), please do call me out on it, because I don't want to do that. I'm only talking about ideas here. Anything else is beside the point and damaging.

One of the credit bureaus has almost everything right on my report...except they think I'm 87 years old. I submitted documentation to prove and change that (I couldn't get the free report until I did because the DOB I was putting in didn't match their records. They said they changed it and wouldn't tell me where they were getting that number...and the next report was back to the same thing. Ridiculous.

Sean, I'm not attacking you. It is not about you. It is about a position you have, and my lack of understanding of it.

My apologies for misreading you.

As for the specific point, I think I was trying to say that, whether or not the practice is rampant, the fact that the system is vulnerable to such a possibility, and vulnerable in such a way as to hide its own vulnerability strikes me as highly problematic, and not usable for hiring practices. I don't know how to fix the problem, so maybe it is the best of a set of bad choices, but I have my doubts.

Apology accepted.

the fact that the system is vulnerable to such a possibility, and vulnerable in such a way as to hide its own vulnerability strikes me as highly problematic

Can I talk more about this, or is the whole thing off the table?

Please, go ahead.