Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Credit scoring systems in the United States have garnered considerable criticism from various media outlets, consumer law organizations,[1] government officials,[2] debtors unions,[3][4] and academics. Racial bias,[5] discrimination against prospective employees,[6] discrimination against medical and student debt holders,[7] poor risk predictability, manipulation of credit scoring algorithms,[8] inaccurate reports,[9] and overall immorality are some of the concerns raised regarding the system. Danielle Citron and Frank Pasquale list 3 major flaws in the current credit-scoring system:[10]

  1. Disparate impacts: The algorithms systematize biases that have been measured externally and are known to impact disadvantaged groups such as racial minorities and women. Because the algorithms are proprietary, they cannot be tested for built-in human bias.
  2. Arbitrary: Research shows that there is substantial variation in scoring based on audits. Responsible financial behavior can be penalized.
  3. Opacity: credit score technology is not transparent so consumers are unable to know why their credit scores are affected.

The scoring system has also been studied as a form of classification to shape an individuals life-chances—a form of economic inequality.[11] With the rise in neoliberal economic policy, credit scoring systems are seen as a classification scheme necessitated by the loss of collective social services and risk.[12] The credit scoring system in the United States has been compared to (and was the inspiration for) the Social Credit System in China.[13][14]

The use of credit information in connection with applying for various types of insurance or in landlord background checks (for rental applications) has drawn similar amounts of scrutiny and criticism, because obtaining and maintaining employment, housing, transport, and insurance are among the basic functions of meaningful participation in modern society,[15] and in some cases (such as auto insurance) are mandated by law.[16]

Discriminatory effects[]

Credit scores are widely used as the basis for decisions to allow or deny individuals the opportunity to do things such as taking out loans, buy houses and cars, and open credit cards and other kinds of accounts. This has been criticized as a practice having discriminatory effects.[17] Credit companies purport to measure creditworthiness by looking at information like the number of accounts held, length of credit, history of paying back borrowed money, and punctuality of payment. As credit scores have become necessary to maintain credit and purchasing power, this system has come to serve as a wall between favored and disfavored classes of people.[11] The expansion of accessible credit has come with a downside of exclusion as people with poor credit (those that are considered high risk by credit scoring systems) become dependent on short-term alternatives such as licensed money lenders (the home credit industry), pawn brokers, payday lenders, and even loan sharks.[18] These expansions of consumer credit acquisition are the direct result of exclusionary systems of mainstream credit monitoring institutions.[18] Credit scoring systems also act as a way to treat individuals as objects that are subject to a particular set of quantifiable attributes.[19] In addition, they have a degrading potential that celebrates calculability over human needs.[20] Discriminatory responses to poor credit create a self-fulfilling prophecy as it raises costs for future financing which increases the likelihood of being unemployed or insolvent.[10]

Racism[]

Credit score systems are well known to contain racial bias and have been shown to increase racial disparities[5][21][22][23] as studies show that African American and American Latino populations have substantially lower scores than the American population on average.[1] Racial discrimination also results in impacts on the credit scores and economic security of communities of color—that ultimately, "entrenches and reinforces inequality by dictating a consumer's access to future opportunities".[1]

Numerous studies have found racial disparities in credit scoring:

  • 1996 study found African-Americans were three times as likely to have FICO scores below 620 as whites and that Hispanics were twice as likely.[24]
  • 1997 study found minority neighborhood consumers had lower credit scores.[25]
  • 2004 study found high minority zip codes to have significantly worse scores than non-minority zip codes.[26]
  • 2004 study found that African American and Hispanic consumers constituted over 60% of the consumers having the worst credit scores.[27]
  • 2004 study found the median credit score for whites in 2001 was 738, but the median credit score for African Americans was 676 and for Hispanics was 670.[28]
  • 2004 research study found fewer than 40% of consumers who lived in high-minority neighborhoods had credit scores of over 701.[29]
  • 2006 studied US counties with high minority populations determining that those countries had lower average credit scores than predominantly white counties.[30]
  • 2007 study by the Federal Trade Commission found that African Americans and Hispanics strongly overrepresented in the lowest scoring categories regarding auto insurance company's use of credit scores.[31]
  • 2007 report found significant racial disparities in 300,000 credit files matched with Social Security records with African American scores being half that of white, non-Hispanics.[32]
  • 2010 study found that African American in Illinois zip codes had scores of less than 620 at a rate of 54.2%. In zip codes that were majority Latino, 31.4% of individuals had a credit score of less than 620, and only 47.3% had credit scores greater than 700.[33]
  • 2012 study examined the credit scores for about 200,000 consumers finding the median FICO score in majority minority zip codes was in the 34th percentile, while it was in the 52nd percentile for low minority zip codes.[34]

The outcomes for black Americans because of this bias are higher interest rates on home loans and auto loans; longer loan terms; increased debt collection default lawsuits, and an increase in the use of predatory lenders.[35] FICO has defended the system stating that income, property, education, and employment are not evenly distributed across society and it is irrational to think an objective measure would not exhibit these discrepancies.[19] Tamara Nopper, sociologist at The Center for Critical Race & Digital Studies has stated that to solve the true issue of racism is not just to regulate it, as politics focus on, but to eliminate it in favor of public-owned banks that serve the community instead of shareholders.[21][36]

A related concept of has also been shown to discriminate along racial lines, disproportionately harming black and Latino populations.[37]

Employment[]

Employers are unable to access credit scores on the credit reports sold for the purposes of employment screening but are able to acquire debt and payment history.[38] Credit reports are legal to use for employment screening in all states, although some have passed legislation limiting the practice to only certain positions. John Ulzheimer, president of the and the founder of CreditExpertWitness.com, stated in a CNBC report that, "[credit scores] indicate if you're in financial distress. These are attributes that are important to employers. For example, would you want to hire someone in your accounting department who can't manage their own obligations?".[39] This approach has been noted as a discriminatory issue as the decisions can prevent one from gaining employment.[5][40] Eric Rosenberg, director of state government relations for TransUnion, has also stated that there is no research that shows any statistical correlation between what's in somebody's credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud.[6] The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) has stated that credit scoring perpetuates economic inequality by controlling access to opportunities in the future as well as important necessities such as employment.[1]

In 2009, TransUnion representatives testified before the Connecticut legislature about their practice of marketing credit score reports to employers for use in the hiring process. Legislators in at least twelve states introduced bills, and three states have passed laws, to limit the use of credit check during the hiring process.[41]

Medical debt holders[]

Medical debt is often a barrier to obtaining credit, housing, and employment.[7] Because medical situations are often unexpected, they can cause an individual or family to experience financial distress, especially when unanticipated or "surprise" bills are unable to be paid.[7]

The debt is reported to credit bureaus due to payment delays, insurance disputes, confusion, or the dysfunctional nature of the US healthcare finance system.[7]

Credit scores treat medical debts the same as any other debts despite their involuntary nature (unlike opening a credit card for example). Some states have implemented laws to protect consumers against medical debts affecting their scores ranging from:[7]

  • Prohibiting the reporting of medical debt for a certain time period after billing.
  • Protections within payment plans for consumers.
  • Restriction of reporting of medical debt for uninsured or underinsured patients or for patients that are negotiating disputes with their health insurance company.
  • Requirements of notice when debt is reported.
  • Protections focused on vulnerable patients (such as children).

The NCLC recommends 8 key requirements for policy reform: 1) expansion of public financial assistance; 2) financial assistance minimum standards; 3) large health care facilities must screen for eligibility for insurance; 4) language assistance for understanding the financial process; 5) payments start after 90 days; 6) clarification of contractual violations for a hospital's forgiveness of a patient's copay, coinsurance, etc.; 7) protecting family members from a loved ones debts; and 8) enforcement of the statute through a private right of action.[7]

Student debt holders[]

The non-profit organization Student Debt Crisis along with Summer, a social impact startup that helps student debt holders published a national survey in 2018 that found 59% of respondents were prevented from making large purchases, 56% from buying a home, and 42% from buying a car. 58% reported that their credit scores had declined due to the debts, 28% were unable to start a business, 10% reported failing a credit check for a job prospect, and 13% failed a credit check for an apartment application.[42][43] Rental application rejections and the inability to find sufficient housing is a well known consequence of credit scores as it leaves college graduates unable to participate in society. Even if loan payments are never late, debt-to-income ratios can be too high for landlords to approve an application.[44] Buying a home can be even more difficult, if not impossible, as student loans are often as big as or larger than an average mortgage.[45]

Inaccuracies and algorithmic subjectivity[]

Consumers in the US have very little control over how they are scored and even less ability to dispute unfair, biased, or inaccurate credit report assessments.[8] Scoring is automated, which results in potential consequences, often lacking oversight.[10] Credit reports by the three largest companies are commonly found to be incorrect with thousands of cases going to court each year.[9] Federal law requires agencies to investigate disputed information; however, "the agencies have operated for decades with systems that make it nearly impossible to conduct a comprehensive investigation, attorneys and consumer advocates say. The law is so nuanced, they say, that credit bureaus can essentially wash their hands of meaningful review."[9] In 2020, 280,000 complains were filed to the CFPB regarding credit reporting error issues.[46] One of the alleged reasons for the excess of errors, according to Matt Litt, consumer campaign director with U.S. Public Interest Research Group, is that the credit reporting agencies are not incentivized to fix them because consumers are not the customers, but are instead the product—lenders, landlords, and other businesses seeking credit information are the customers.[9] CNBC reported that there is an, "astounding number of errors in the credit reports that are the result of misaligned economic and legal incentives",[47] and a public poll by the Morning Consult indicated (74%) a demand for new laws or regulations to deal with credit bureaus.[48] CNBC proposed 3 solutions to the issue of inaccurate reports:[47]

  • Liability for incorrect data must be changed as currently, there is no one held accountable and no penalties for not investigating disputes.
  • Credit reports should be free and proactively available for consumers to monitor for inaccuracies.
  • Expand the information usable by reports using big data.

A large percent of credit scores are estimated to have inaccuracies.[15] A portion of the inaccuracies stem from misattribution errors from the intermixing of data due to similar names or information.[49] Alternative data using personal data outside of the scope of traditional credit scoring is also known to contain inaccuracies.[50] Further, none of this data collection, the methods, or the parameters used to determine creditworthiness are public information.[51] Unfair judgements of creditworthiness creates an unfair and socially unjust[52] system that restricts participation in society.[15] These algorithmic inaccuracies driven by bid data can have serious implications for human identity and status in society, a concept known as the "scored society".[10][15]

Inaccuracy[]

Because a significant portion of the FICO score is determined by the ratio of credit used to credit available on credit card accounts, one way to increase the score is to increase the credit limits on one's credit card accounts.[53] This has been criticized as it acts as a way to incentivize accumulation of debts and deincentivizes people from financing purchases themselves through saving,[54] as well as normalizes the credit-debt system and consumerism.[55]

Credit invisibility[]

The concept of "credit invisibility" (a term used by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB[56]) is factored into this as there are many individuals who do not use or need credit (usually the elderly), avoid using credit, or avoid participating in the credit system. Being credit invisible puts consumers at a disadvantage.[57] Hispanic Americans are typically more likely to pay in cash and pool resources with extended family. None of this is visible to credit reporting agencies and therefore leaves Hispanics outside the ability to make major purchases.[58] Another group of American's that are, "left in digital poorhouse", a phrase coined by social scientist Virginia Eubanks are young—in particular, millennials. This is due to access versus ownership—unable to purchase because of low credit, they seek alternatives to buying cars or houses. They also do not use credit cards as much as cash and rely on mobile payment apps like Venmo. None of these transactions are captured by credit reporting agencies and leave students credit invisible. Further, millennials report believing that being debt free is a sign of financial success.[59] To build a credit score requires one to take on debt, acting effectively as a debt score.[60]

Alternative scoring systems[]

Credit invisibility combined with the rise of big data and artificial intelligence has given rise to a new market that challenges the traditional FICO model of credit scoring.[36] The use of alternative data has been pursued as a means to access more consumers, a form of market competition in an industry seeking greater profits.[36] Controversy exists regarding the invasive nature of the technology. Some of the issues are summarized here:

  • Violation of due process may result as artificial intelligence scores may miscategorize consumers. Due process laws along with regulations based on this tradition must be used as a protective measure.[10]
  • Credit scoring systems using AI lack transparency in decision making as the technology is patented.[10]
  • Predictive algorithms run a high risk of being inaccurate and unfair, effecting peoples lives in discriminatory or arbitrary ways.[10]
  • Alternative data collection can be invasive as it collects data beyond the scope of financial transactions (such as paying utility bills) to generate "digital characters"[61] based on social media accounts or internet browsing history.[36]
  • Violation of consumer protection and fair lending laws (as well as human and ciivil rights violations) may result as privacy and security may be jeopardized.[15]
  • Bid data is attempting to address the issue of traditional credit scoring's inability to accurately predict risk, "credit invisible" populations, and "thin file" populations (people that have very limited or outdated credit histories). The aim is to build credit histories based on alternate information; however, it may result in lower scores instead of no scores (especially for people who are low-income) due to financial prioritization such as getting behind on utilities for high-cost months in favor of critical items.[50]
  • Policymakers and regulators must focus on data accuracy, verifiable predictiveness, and the potential for discrimination.[50] Research strongly indicates none of these are being met by alternative credit scoring companies.[50][62][63]
  • Redlining may return due to hidden biases in the algorithms.[64]
  • The more data points used for a credit assessment, the greater the difficulty in transparency.[8][21]

Poor predictor of risk[]

Credit scores are enhanced by having multiple credit cards, the use of credit cards, and having installment loans. However, financially secure individuals who do not use multiple credit cards, or who self-finance expenses, may be inaccurately assessed a lower credit score.[65] Some have blamed lenders for inappropriately approving loans for subprime applicants, despite signs that people with poor scores were at high risk for not repaying the loan. By not considering whether the person could afford the payments if they were to increase in the future, many of these loans may have put the borrowers at risk of default.[66] Some banks have reduced their reliance on FICO scoring. For example, Golden West Financial abandoned FICO scores for a more costly analysis of a potential borrower's assets and employment before giving a loan.[67]

Non-transparency[]

Credit scoring technologies are not public information as they are proprietary trademarks of the companies that invent them.[10]

Morality[]

Credit scores have been widely criticized as a systematic way to measure morality. They track consumption choices over time and so they are used to reflect a person's ability to manage money. The classification system of credit scores "rewards consumers who belong to the right category", and excludes those who are on the fringes of classification; credit scores nominally intended as a gauge of reliability as a lender becomes instead a gauge of morality. Companies keep records of purchasing behavior, which suggests certain behavior patterns, some of which are rewarded and others are punished—usually in ways that broaden the economic and (perceived) moral gaps between richer and poorer persons. These punishments can include higher premiums, loss of privileges, poorer service, or higher interest rates, which ultimately affect credit score and purchasing power.[11] This idea is similarly expressed with the Social Credit system in China as it acts as a tool to, [fix] moral decay"[13] and "encourage positive economic and moral behaviours".[15]

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Past Imperfect: How Credit Scores and Other Analytics "Bake In" and Perpetuate Past Discrimination (PDF), May 2016
  2. ^ Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree: The system that determines credit scores is ‘broken’, 27 February 2019
  3. ^ Alone our debts are a burden. Together they make us powerful.
  4. ^ Collective Debt (2020-06-23). Can't Pay, Won't Pay: The Case for Economic Disobedience and Debt Abolition. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-64259-382-2.
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Credit scores in America perpetuate racial injustice. Here's how, 13 October 2015
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b "Millions Need Not Apply" New York Times, May 29, 2011.
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Don't Add Insult to Injury: Medical Debt & Credit Reports (PDF), National Consumer Law Center, November 2019
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b c Mikella Hurley and Julius Adebayo (2017), "Credit Scoring in the Era of Big Data", Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 18 (1)
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Yamil Berard (19 February 2019), Credit errors upend lives of thousands of consumers, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Danielle Keats Citron and Frank A. Pasquale (2014), "The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions", Washington Law Review, 89
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b c Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy (2013), "Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38: 559–572, doi:10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.002
  12. ^ Jacob Hacker (9 October 2006), The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care and Retirement And How You Can Fight Back, United States: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195179507
  13. ^ Jump up to: a b Karen Li Xan Wong and Amy Shields Dobson (2019), "We're just data: Exploring China's social credit system in relation to digital platform ratings cultures in Westernised democracies", Global Media and China, 4 (2): 220–232, doi:10.1177/2059436419856090, hdl:20.500.11937/81128
  14. ^ Tom McGregor (2 March 2019), Commentary: Actually, China's social credit system isn't the first, Channel News Asia
  15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Jonathan Cinnamon (2017), "Social Injustice in Surveillance Capitalism", Surveillance & Society, 15 (5): 609–625, doi:10.24908/ss.v15i5.6433
  16. ^ Legislatures, National Conference of State. "Use of Credit Information in Insurance 2011 Legislation". Retrieved 23 October 2016.
  17. ^ [Rice, L and Swesnik, D: "Discriminatory Effects of Credit Scoring on Communities of Color" Suffolk University Law Review 46:935 (2013)]
  18. ^ Jump up to: a b Donncha Marron (2013), "Governing Poverty in a Neoliberal Age: New Labour and the Case of Financial Exclusion", New Political Economy, 18 (6): 785–810, doi:10.1080/13563467.2012.753043
  19. ^ Jump up to: a b Donncha Marron (2007), "'Lending by numbers': credit scoring and the constitution of risk within American consumer credit", Economy and Society, 36 (1): 103–133, doi:10.1080/03085140601089846
  20. ^ George Ritzer (1995), Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society, SAGE Publications, Inc., doi:10.4135/9781452243115, ISBN 9780803990449
  21. ^ Jump up to: a b c Rose Eveleth (13 June 2019), Credit Scores Could Soon Get Even Creepier and More Biased, Vice
  22. ^ How Algorithms Can Bring Down Minorities' Credit Scores
  23. ^ From Inherent Racial Bias to Incorrect Data—The Problems With Current Credit Scoring Models, 26 February 2021
  24. ^ Freddie Mac, Automated Underwriting: Making Mortgage Lending Simpler and Fairer for America's Families (Sept. 1996) http://www.housingfinance.org/uploads/Publicationsmanager/9706_Aut.pdf.
  25. ^ Fair, Isaac & Co., The Effectiveness of Scoring on Low-toModerate Income and High-Minority Area Populations 22, Fig. 9 (Aug. 1997) http://market360online.com/sqlimages/1261/36693.pdf
  26. ^ Brent Kabler, Missouri Department of Insurance, Insurance-Based Credit Scores: Impact on Minority and Low Income Populations in Missouri (Jan. 2004) https://insurance.mo.gov/reports/credscore.pdf
  27. ^ Texas Department of Insurance, Report to the 79th Legislature--Use of Credit Information by Insurers in Texas (Dec. 30, 2004) http://www.tdi.texas.gov/reports/documents/creditrpt04.pdf
  28. ^ Raphael W. Bostic, Paul S. Calem, & Susan M. Wachter, Joint Ctr. for Hous. Studies of Harvard Univ., Hitting the Wall: Credit As an Impediment to Homeownership (Feb. 2004) http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/babc_04-5.pdf
  29. ^ Robert B. Avery, Paul S. Calem, & Glenn B. Canner, Credit Report Accuracy and Access to Credit, Federal Reserve Bulletin (Summer 2004) https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2004/summer04_credit.pdf.
  30. ^ Matt Fellowes, Brookings Inst., Credit Scores, Reports, and Getting Ahead in America 9-10 (May 2006) https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/2800/uploads
  31. ^ Federal Trade Commission, CreditBased Insurance Scores: Impacts on Consumers of Automobile Insurance 3 (July 2007) https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/credit-based-insurance5 scores-impacts-consumers-automobile-insurance-report-congress-federaltrade/p044804facta_report_credit-based_insurance_scores.pdf
  32. ^ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the Availability and Affordability of Credit 80-81 (Aug. 2007) http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/creditscore/creditscore.pdf
  33. ^ Sarah Duda & Geoff Smith, Woodstock Institute, Bridging the Gap: Credit Scores and Economic Opportunity in Illinois Communities of Color 8 (Sept. 2010), http://www.woodstockinst.org/sites/default/files/attachments/bridgingthegapcreditscore s_sept2010_smithduda.pdf
  34. ^ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Analysis of Differences Between Consumer- and Creditor-Purchased Credit Scores, at 18, Sept. 2012, http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201209_Analysis_Differences_Consumer_Credit.pdf
  35. ^ Credit scores are supposed to be race-neutral. That's impossible., 16 October 2020
  36. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Tamara K. Nopper (August 2020), Alternative Data and the Future of Credit Scoring (PDF), Data For Progress
  37. ^ Chi Chi Wu (June 2007), Credit Scoring and Insurance: Costing Consumers Billions and Perpetuating the Economic Racial Divide (PDF), National Consumer Law Center
  38. ^ Does checking your credit score lower it? Plus 12 other common credit score myths debunked, 28 January 2021
  39. ^ Can employers see your credit score? How to prepare for what they actually see when they run a credit check, 27 August 2020
  40. ^ There's No Such Thing as a Good Debtor, 20 September 2020
  41. ^ "As a Hiring Filter, Credit Checks Draw Questions", The New York Times, April 9, 2010
  42. ^ Buried in Debt A national survey report on the state of student loan borrowers in 2018 (PDF), Summer & Student Debt Crisis, 1 November 2018
  43. ^ Diana Hembree (1 November 2018), New Report Finds Student Debt Burden Has 'Disastrous Domino Effect' On Millions Of Americans, Forbes
  44. ^ Natalie Kitroeff (6 June 2014), Young and in Debt in New York City, The New York Times
  45. ^ Annie Nova (19 April 2018), Why buying a home can be almost impossible with massive student loan debt, CNBC
  46. ^ Ann Carrns (19 February 2021), More Consumers Complain About Errors on Their Credit Reports, The New York Times
  47. ^ Jump up to: a b Aaron Klein (27 September 2017), The real problem with credit reports is the astounding number of errors, CNBC
  48. ^ Anna Gronewold (20 September 2017), Poll: U.S. Consumers Back New Laws, Class-Action Suits After Equifax Hack, Morning Consult
  49. ^ Chi Wu (2009), Automated Injustice: How a Mechanized Dispute System Frustrates Consumers Seeking to Fix Errors in Their Credit Reports, National Consumer Law Center
  50. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Persis Yu, Jillian McLaughlin, and Marina Levy (2014), Big Data: A Big Disappointment for Scoring Consumer Credit Risk, National Consumer Law CenterCS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  51. ^ Pam Dixon and Robert Gellman. 2014. The Scoring of America: How Secret Consumer Scores Threaten Your Privacy and Your Future. San Diego, CA: World Privacy Forum.
  52. ^ Hacking, Ian. 1999. Making Up People. In The Science Studies Reader, edited by Biagioli, M., 161-171. London: Routledge.
  53. ^ "Credit Scores: Not-So-Magic Numbers" Business Week, Feb. 7, 2008.
  54. ^ Ana Kasparian and Jen Pan (5 June 2021). "Weekends: Anti-Populism and the Wuhan Lab-Leak Hypothesis w/ Thomas Frank" (Podcast). Jacobin.
  55. ^ Lisa Peñaloza and Michelle Barnhart (2011), "Living U.S. Capitalism: The Normalization of Credit/Debt", Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4): 743–762, doi:10.1086/660116
  56. ^ The CFPB Office of Research (May 2015), Data Point: Credit Invisibles (PDF), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  57. ^ Credit Invisibility and Alternative Data: Promises and Perils, National Consumer Law Center, July 2019
  58. ^ Kevin G. Hall (26 July 2015), Hispanics face hurdles in access to credit, mortgages, The Charlotte Observer
  59. ^ Christopher K. Odinet (2019), "The New Data of Student Debt" (PDF), 92 Southern California Law Review
  60. ^ Ramsey Solutions (28 April 2021), UltraFICO: Ultra Ridiculous, Lampo Licensing, LLC.
  61. ^ Tamara K. Nopper (2019) “Digital Character in ‘The Scored Society’: FICO, Social Networks, and Competing Measurements of Creditworthiness;” Captivating Technology: Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life, edited by Ruha Benjamin.
  62. ^ Ariel Nelson (December 2019), Broken Records Redux: How errors by criminal background check companies continue to harm consumers seeking jobs and housing (PDF), National Consumer Law Center
  63. ^ Kirsten E. Martin (2015), "Data Aggregators, Consumer Data, and Responsibility Online: Who is Tracking Consumers Online and Should They Stop", The Information Society, 32 (1), doi:10.1080/01972243.2015.1107166
  64. ^ Jordan Pearson (2 February 2017), AI Could Resurrect a Racist Housing Policy, VICE
  65. ^ "How Payment History Impacts Your Credit Score – myFICO". www.myfico.com.
  66. ^ Credit scores didn't fail in screening applicants for subprime loans Archived 2011-07-23 at the Wayback Machine(April 7, 2008)By PAMELA YIP / The Dallas Morning News
  67. ^ "Credit Scores: Not-So-Magic Numbers" Business Week, Feb. 7, 2008. Archived 2009-01-23 at the Wayback Machine
Retrieved from ""