I am not sure how popular Forbes.com is these days, but it needs to get "rewrite" involved on a particular story that was written last night. Reporter Anna Vander Broek struggled with a story about raising credit scores. Forbes is reputable enough that it should not have allowed this particular story to appear on its Web site. What's more, the editors must have been sleeping at the wheel as well.
From the story:A credit score of 720 will get you an auto loan with an interest rate around 5%. A score of 620 will raise your interest to at least 13%. If you take out a $2,000 car loan, that's the difference between paying $100 and $260 a month.
Seriously? A $2,000 car loan? OK, fine. Using a 60-month loan, a $2,000 loan at 13% would result in a car payment of $45.51 a month. If she meant a $20,000 loan you'd have a car payment of $455.06. A 5% loan on $2,000 would get you a payment -- on a 60-month loan -- of $37.74. A $20,000 loan at 5%, meanwhile, would cost you $377.42 a month. It looks as though the reporter just took the loan amount and used the loan percentage to come up with the figures. Five percent of $2,000 is $100. And 13% of $2,000 is $260. Wow. An editor didn't catch that?
From the story:The two most important factors that affect your score are your payment history and whether you've had any collections.
Those two often go together. Miss a payment that you never catch up on and you'll end up in collections. The two most important factors, just for the record, are payment history and utilization. Those two categories comprise 65% of your FICO score (see story here).
From the story:To beat the system, Johansson suggests you pay off your credit card bills and then wait a full billing cycle before charging any more purchases on the card. That means your credit card company will report your debts to the credit agencies when you have a low balance. Then, right before you visit the loan office, put a small charge on the card--around 5% of your limit. FICO likes to see that you're still using credit, but doing so responsibly.
This is just silly. On the one hand, this person is recommending that a consumer pay the card in full -- and refrain from using the card for an entire month. Presumably, this person wants the card to report a balance of $0. But then, right before visiting a loan office, this same consumer is supposed to create a balance that is 5% of the available credit limit.
What's missing here, of course, is that card issuers typically report balances just once a month. If you don't time your visit to the lender just perfectly, there's a very good chance that the 5% usage won't even be reflected on the credit report. A better suggestion is to just use a small percentage (preferably less than 10%) of the available credit each month -- that way you don't have to play this game.
From the story:If you don't know what your current credit score is, you have a few options. First, avoid Web sites that advertise a free credit report. In most cases, you'll end up having to pay in the end. The only place you can truly get a free credit report is at the government-sponsored site AnnualCreditReport.com. Keep in mind, though, that this free report only shows your credit history, not your FICO score. You can get your FICO score directly from Fair Isaac for around $30.
I thought the reporter was going to tell me about the few options I have if I want to know my credit score. Instead, she discusses credit reports. She's right, though. You should avoid Web sites that advertise free credit reports. Consumers should use AnnualCreditReport.com, which is the only place you can get a no-strings-attached credit report once a year (link here).
As an aside, I just have to point something out. At the top of the Forbes.com story, there is an advertisement for freecreditreport.com, a Web site that advertises free credit reports (yes, the very kind of site that the reporter told her readers to avoid). Freecreditreport.com, it turns out, sponsored the Forbes story. I wonder if Forbes gives freecreditreport.com 7 days to cancel if it's not satisfied (link here). Ha!
See screen shot here:
As for FICO scores, you can get them in several places. One, you can get them from myFICO.com (TransUnion and Equifax only, since Experian and myFICO had a falling out in February). Or you can get them from Equifax.com or TransUnion (here) directly. Finally, the FICO score you get directly from myFICO.com will cost $15.95 (this month you can get a 30% discount if you use the discount code of myFICOis8). In any case, FICO scores are not $30 -- and never have been.
From the story:If it turns out you do have a low score, it's worth spending time to raise it, even if that means you put off applying for a loan. Consider hiring a credit counselor to help you perform a "rapid re-score." It might cost you $100 or more, but that's small change compared to what a lender might demand in higher interest rates.
If you didn't know, you'd think that "rapid re-score" was some magic product that turned your low score into a high score. Rapid rescoring is valuable when there are errors on your credit report or you have high balances that were recently paid off (but are not yet reflected on your credit reports). It's not something you'd use if you had a bevy of late payments strewn about your credit reports. Those missed payments won't be undone through the rapid rescoring process. If you have a low score because of information that is accurately reflected on your credit report, you're going to have a low score before and after you try rapid rescore.
I'm not surprised the reporter recommended rapid rescoring, though. The person she quoted exclusively throughout the story is Eddie Johansson, president of Credit Security Group, a firm that provides rapid rescoring services. Nothing against Eddie, mind you. But it's funny how that works.
If I had been the editor working this story (was there an editor?), I would have "spiked" it (killed it). Or I would have asked for a complete rewrite. To have allowed this story to be publicly consumed is a shame.
Read the rest of the story here (link).
Friday, March 20, 2009
From The Misinformation Files (Forbes.com): How To Raise Your Credit Score
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
BY EMAIL 
RSS 
First and foremost, awesome math skills, lady! Christ almighty, are you kidding me!?
ReplyDeleteSecond, who the hell did you do your research with? There is almost no correct information in this article, seriously - did you do any research? I think not.
As for this re-score thing, it is shit. There is no quick fix, sorry folks - credit repair (as well as originally earning good credit) takes time and hard work. Quick fixes rarely work and are often scams. There is nothing you can not do yourself for much cheaper and a little time.
The only good advice you gave was the advice to not use freecreditreport.com and the likes (and quite funny that they sponsored the article).
Where was your editor? Do you have an editor? If so, they ought to be ashamed, as should you. Sadly, even if she were to rewrite this story, the damage is done. People have seen it and many will take it at face value because it is Forbes. It is so important that, when putting information on the web, it be correct because, remember folks, the internet is forever.
Lion, I just don't know what happened with Anna. Forbes typically gets it right. This was a mess, though. And I refuse to believe that an editor worked this story. And certainly there were no fact checkers.
ReplyDeleteForbes should yank this story. My readers would crucify me if I wrote something like this. And rightfully so.
I wouldn't crucify you, at least not at first. I would be worried that someone had obviously kidnapped you (most likely Amex or Citi) and was forcing you to write blatantly incorrect information.
ReplyDeleteIf that theory was proven false then I would crucify you.
Actually, yes. If something like this appeared on my site, I think it would be safe to say that I did get kidnapped.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't worry, I am sure your readers would send out a search party for you. We know where to look...
ReplyDeleteHaha. Well, it's a mystery as to what happened with this Forbes story. Also, I REALLY hate writing these stories. I would hate it if a reporter did this to my story. But then I would not write something like this.
ReplyDeleteBut this much I know: I have readers who absolutely would not tolerate this. A major gaffe like this would cost me readers.
The problem as I see it is reporters and publications that don't know the topic. I'm constantly frustrated with Consumer Reports doing articles on Mountain Bikes or Video Cameras when their reporters AND editors know nothing about either topic. The Wall St. Journal has an "outdoors" correspondent who is a wanker about outdoor sports at best, and the editors seem to know even less. I could go on and on. Bottom line, reporting and journalism today are (mostly) about selling ads in the publication. (I used to be in the magazine publishing biz, so I think I know a bit about of what I speak.) The sad part is the unwitting consumer associates "Forbes" or some other prestigious name with authority, and thus believes whatever is written.
ReplyDeleteKen, sadly, you're probably right. Maybe Anna got thrown into a topic that she is not familiar with. But they are good at selling ads. Heck, the sponsored ad is one that Anna said her readers should avoid. That's good stuff.
ReplyDeleteJust did a search of Anna's previous stories. She's familiar with the topic. Maybe she just had a bad day.
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me like she was in a rush to finish and just took what she was told at face value. There could not have been any fact checking done. And I place just as much blame on the editors as I do on her. It is their job to catch this crap, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteYes. Ms. Vander Broek would have had an editor working on this. She would have written the story and then filed it to an editor. A line editor would have checked it for style and grammar. Very likely, this same editor would have checked to make sure that the math worked out. It's unlikely that a fact checker would have been assigned to this story, though.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's a freelance piece that no one bothered to check?
ReplyDeleteIn any case it was careless, and potentially damaging to people that take the her advice (hire a CRO?? Hell no!) and to Forbes.
By the way, I thought rapid re-score was something your lender did? It seems odd to me that you'd get some report from a third party and your potential lender would accept that without verifying that the items excluded from scoring shouldn't have been there. That whole section sounds like a fix that might have been used during the housing boom to get people into loans they couldn't afford.
This should be featured on Bad Money Advice:
ReplyDeletehttp://badmoneyadvice.com/
CS, I am hoping that one of my mortgage industry readers -- or someone who just knows this stuff -- can explain the rapid rescore system. I'd love to know how that works -- exactly.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the reporter does work at Forbes.com. She is not a freelance reporter.
CS, thanks for that link. I have never heard of that site before. Looks interesting.
ReplyDeleteOh, and if you know the operator of that site, feel free to shoot my story over to them.
ReplyDeleteI just found out about them today. JD over at Get Rich Slowly featured a guest post on his site that had an error (the person writing displayed a fundamental lack of understanding how tax brackets and marginal tax rates work). JD admitted a day later that he (and his accountant who he consulted on the post before posting it) should have caught the error. Nonetheless it got featured on Bad Money Advice. JD posted about that, too, which I thought was pretty cool. He hadn't heard of it before either. I checked it out and I like what I've seen.
ReplyDeleteVery cool, CS. I'm checking out the site right now. And cool that JD did what he did, too. JD is a straight shooter. I like him.
ReplyDeleteI like him a lot too, GRS is essential daily reading for me.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoy Ramit, over at IWillTeachYouToBeRich. I'm on pins and needles waiting for part two of the Suze Saga. He's funny, something of a shameless self-promoter, but he does it in a way that I don't find off-putting. And his pieces about entrepreneurship are excellent. Even though I don't see myself going in that direction right now, I find that a lot of the information there is easily applicable to other areas.
Oh, and there's this other site I read all the time. I can't think of the name, but the dude there covers credit issues so thoroughly and completely that it puts all other mainstream credit advice to shame. He's even willing to call other writers out on their sloppy, poorly researched drivel.
CS, I will have to check out these sites you're talking about. I like funny people. Ramit sounds like someone I would enjoy. Gonna check that out right now.
ReplyDeleteAs for the last site, shoot me an email when you figure out the name of it. Always interested in good credit sites! (Seriously, thanks. I don't know everything but I try my best.)
There's a chapter in his book that he's made available online, it's about optimizing your credit cards. I haven't gotten around to it yet because I'm in the middle of four other non-school books, but it sounds like something you'd have something to say about.
ReplyDeleteThere is a way to manipulate your utilization for credit reporting and scoring purposes. All of your cards will report monthly only. Using your free credit report, from annualcreditreport.com of course, find out when they report - for all of mine, they report the cycle closing date balance. Use your cards however you need to, but, just before the reporting date for a card, make an electronic payment to reduce it's utilization to the desired level. You will still have to make at least a minimum payment on a non-zero statement; so don't neglect that. If your cards have staggered reporting dates, you could move debt around from card to card; so that it doesn't appear on your credit report, but I haven't tried this. I pay-in-full about 95+% of the time, but I do run a lot of expenses through my cards. For several months before applying for credit, I run the reported balances down, just to be safe, by various techniques, including the one I just mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIf debt isn't reported to the agency, it "doesn't exist", and it won't affect your credit score, which is just the report digested down to a number of somewhat dubious utility (other than allowing lenders to CYA and pretend they did due diligence).
I know when every single one of my cards report, and manipulate my usage and payments accordingly. If ever I decide to use a credit card for anything, I choose one I know has just reported.
ReplyDeleteAnd that story was frightening. With advice like that, it's no wonder Joe the Consumer ends up in such deep sh*t. He assumes that by reading Forbes, he's getting good information about how to manage his finances. SURPRISE!
I curious to see if they do a correction on the story. Or will it just remain there with no changes? I see that someone commented about the math (at Forbes). Haha.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you on this one, accept when you lambast her for going against Freecreditreport.com. That's what real journalists are supposed to do--I'm sure she didn't even know it was being sponsored by that company, as she shouldn't. I think it's hilarious that you criticize her for that and then have ads for myFico plastered all over your site. Makes me question your credibility as well.
ReplyDeleteI was going to comment on Forbes, but they want me to sign up for an account and I already have so many damn accounts - I figured I would just comment on all that stupid right here where I am known and loved :)
ReplyDeleteIn the story, I actually said the reporter was correct for pointing out that readers should avoid freecreditreport.com. Did I not?
ReplyDeleteAs for the FICO ads around the site, I appreciate your comment. One thing I would point out, though: I provide a discount code with that FICO ad. I know FOR A FACT that my readers are buying FICO scores. May as well use the discount code I provide. And, sure, I do get a small commission for each score that is consumed at myFICO.com. But I am VERY, VERY upfront about that. There are several stories on my site that highlights my financial relationship with FICO.
You can question my credibility all you'd like. That's your prerogative. I don't begrudge you for making your opinion known. I would like to think, though, that my body of work here shows that I am not in bed with FICO. But, yes, I do benefit when a reader clicks the FICO ad and consumes the product at FICO's site.
I think that should be obvious. If it's not, I hope I've made it obvious in this thread.
Anon, one other thing: you call my credibility into question because of the ads around the site. Have you taken a look at Forbes.com? The site is plastered with ads. Does that mean we should question the credibility of Forbes.com? I think it's obvious that ads support Forbes.com. And, it should be obvious that the few ads I have around the site support what I do here as well.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people still post anonymously? My goodness it is irritating! You know how hard it is to keep track of all of you? Click on the little space right above "anonymous" that says "Name/URL." You don't even have to put in your real name (although in some cases it would be easier). Come on folks, make it easier for me!
ReplyDeleteI don't mind the anonymous posters, Lion. Some people do that because, well, it keeps them anonymous. :)
ReplyDeleteAs I have mentioned in the past, though, I do log IP addresses. My readers are anonymous to each other. They're not anonymous to me. That said, I do not divulge reader information. My privacy policy is clear there.
So, although I am sure my readers would love for everyone to have a screen name, I don't mind. It's not a bother to me personally.
Post anonymously or post with a screen name. It's your choice.
You are too kind, CM. I mind! If you want to be anonymous use the "Name" feature and MAKE UP A NAME!
ReplyDeleteNevermind me folks...just my early a.m. rant :)
Here are a couple of good links about rapid rescoring services available to mortgage lenders and brokers. The first one is training for the lender and broker salespeople.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facredco.com/Training/rapid_recheck/index.htm
http://www.fundingsuite.com/products2.html
And if you want to ask any questions about rapid rescoring, I'm here. But keep in mind that I sell rapid rescoring services, so I'm not unbiased about this topic.
ReplyDeletePeter, thanks for the links. Because you're in this business, I figured you'd have some input here.
ReplyDeleteAnd the bias is duly noted.
ReplyDeleteIP address yes, town? Not so much.
ReplyDeletelol
No worries, Lion. This forum has a lot of anonymous posters (I enjoy all of them).
ReplyDeleteOne last point to the anonymous poster who thought, because I have FICO ads around the site, my credibility should be called into question. You can judge someone's credibility by looking at the stuff they write. If I screw up a story, my credibility takes a hit. If I -- mostly -- remain mistake free then I build credibility.
The Forbes reporter screwed up on this one. When it comes to credit issues, she doesn't have credibility. She didn't get the most basic stuff correct. I don't care about the ads strewn about Forbes.com. That doesn't take away from the reporter's credibility. Instead, the poorly-researched story, full of errors, is what brings her credibility down.
Thanks for listening.
Clutch, haha. True. These IP trackers don't always match town and domain names perfectly.
ReplyDeleteMyFICO.com and freecreditreport.com are apples and oranges. I'm not sure I understand the criticism, which boils down to... "How dare you say something against a disreputable website when your very own blog advertises a reputable one"?
ReplyDeleteI always knew I liked you, Ulysses
ReplyDeleteSomeone has to, Lion... (and right back atcha)
ReplyDelete"One last point to the anonymous poster who thought, because I have FICO ads around the site, my credibility should be called into question."
ReplyDeleteThe poster has a point. You are in a position to help people, yet you advertise for myFico all over the place. Why? Could you perhaps be involved in their Affiliate program? You know, where you get a percentage of any sale....
You have 3 ads for myFico, yet not a single link to annualcreditreport.com. How long would it take you to add this link? A few minutes? Yet....3 for myfico.
Its okay to be a shill. Just don't deny it when someone calls you on it.
By the way here is the affiliate program for anybody that is interested:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.myfico.com/Affiliates/
Pretty good commissions huh?
Carnap, I am an affiliate. I've been up front about that on the site.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.creditmattersblog.com/2008/09/welcome-to-credit-matters-blog-new-look.html
And from another story:
ReplyDeleteQ: Equifax code fico score?
A: Here, I believe that the reader was looking for myfico's most recent code, which would save them 20% on scores. The most current and reliable code is CPPSAVINGS. If you enter that code at checkout, you can get a 20% discount off your FICO scores. Here is a link to one of my affiliate myfico ads (link here). (Full disclosure: I get a small commission when my readers use that link.)
http://www.creditmattersblog.com/2008/10/google-search-queries-that-helped-you.html
Whether you were concealing that fact or not was not my point (its pretty obvious you are anyways).
ReplyDeleteMy point was that the other poster has a point. You make no effort whatsoever to advertise for annualcreditreport.com, instead your site is plastered with myfico ads. That is telling.
So, yep, the myFICO ads do pay me a commission if my readers use them.
ReplyDeleteDecent commissions, too.
To those who use the ads on the site, thanks for supporting the site (as always).
Here's a blog entry about blogging for $$.
http://www.creditmattersblog.com/2008/11/cartoon-of-day-blogging-for-dollars-not.html
I've never concealed the financial relationship with the ads that are placed on this site. I would hope that most people realize that these ads aren't sprinkled around the site for color and art purposes.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, FICO scores and annualcreditreport.com are two different products. Not sure what one has to do with the other. I don't have the free credit report link on my site.
But I have publicized the annualcreditreport.com product on the site.
http://www.creditmattersblog.com/2009/03/federal-trade-commission-wants-to-make.html
http://www.creditmattersblog.com/2008/12/is-it-time-for-your-annual-credit-check.html
Annualcreditreport.com is for reports. MyFICO is for scores. This blog routinely advises people that ACR is the legit place to get reports, and FICO is the legit place to get scores. I honestly don't see what's controversial or shady about this, or how advising people to get their scores from the only place that provides legit scores is akin to "shilling." It's just good advice.
ReplyDeleteHave to run, Carnap. You've wasted enough of my time today. You don't like what I do at my blog. I get that. You don't like my readers. I get that. We're not in your league when it comes to intellect.
ReplyDeleteSo why is it that you bother coming here? How much time have you wasted here during the past few months? What's the point?
Finally, you tear into me and my readers on a regular basis. It's pretty easy to be a critic (as I just proved with this particular story -- and as you prove on a regular basis). Let me know when you get your own blog or column. I am sure my readers will enjoy sitting at your knee and taking in all of your wisdom.
My guess, by the way, is that you and I crossed paths at some point. I must have irritated you or said something that offended you. That must be why you constantly hang around this blog. Nothing else really makes sense.
I have to agree with this assessment. There's an undercurrent here that isn't "random"; it seems this poster showed up here with an agenda, and is determined to mercilessly push it.
ReplyDelete"I've never concealed the financial relationship with the ads..."
ReplyDeleteAgain not the point.
"Additionally, FICO scores and annualcreditreport.com are two different products. Not sure what one has to do with the other."
annualcreditreport.com isn't really a product, it gives you a way of getting free credit reports. If you really felt these two were disjoint than that makes the fact that you don't advertise for annualcreditreport.com in way a bit odd.
Have you mentioned the site? Sure. But nobody reads everything you post. Its only mentioned now and then.
Anyhow, you've decided to plaster your site with myfico ads. Nothing really wrong with that, but when you criticize forbes for having an ad for freecreditreport.com its a bit hypocritical. You're doing the same sort of thing.
You also go out of your way to advertise for MyFico in your post. There was no disclosure in this post and the vast majority of folks reading would not have seen the posts where you do disclose the fact.
Generally when bloggers advertise for something and there is a relationship they note the relationship every time they advertise for it in a post. When you don't do this it makes you look sleazy. Perhaps its just an innocent slip, perhaps you do it intentionally. I wouldn't know and I'm not making any claim either way. But, you shouldn't be surprised when people find it sleazy, you know like what forbes did.
Carnap, you missed the point of me talking about the ad and Forbes. I found it amusing that the ad was there in the story -- while the reporter was telling readers to avoid it. My point was that the Forbes ad department placed an ad in a story when it would have been better off elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteNow, as to other bloggers out there. I can't tell you how many sites I have been to where bloggers are writing "card reviews." There is no disclosure of that relationship. And yet those bloggers are absolutely benefiting financially from those reviews.
I feel that I have been open about the relationship that I have with FICO. I also think that having an ad on the site indicates that there is a financial relationship. I don't put the ads on the site for free. This should not come as a shock to anyone.
This site advertises a legitimate product. Forbes is advertising a scam product, Freecreditreport.com, which claims to be free but really requires signing up for an expensive product.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, a site advertising a legitimate product can indeed criticize a site that advertises a scam product without sacrificing credibility.
"You've wasted enough of my time today...."
ReplyDeleteHaha, you wear your emotions like a women. Its obvious that you are bothered by what is being said, otherwise you wouldn't respond multiple times to it.
I don't have a problem with your MyFico ads, that isn't my point. My point is you come off as a bit of a hypocrite. Is there something wrong with suggesting that? I'm also suggesting that you make a better effort to disclose your relationship with MyFiCO when you advertise for them in a post. You are taking this personally, but I'm not trying to suggest you are sleazy, rather I'm suggesting it comes off as being sleazy. I don't think that is what the other poster had in mind either.
I don't think anybody is not going to use MyFico because they know you'll get a commission. I think most would be happy (myself included) to have some of the money thrown your way.
Carnap, I care about my reputation around this site. I care about my credibility on this site. If you had a site I imagine you'd protect your credibility and reputation as well. That's all you have on a site like this.
ReplyDeleteIt should not be a surprise that I post multiple times when someone calls me a shill or implies that I am doing sleazy things.
Is there anything wrong with suggesting that I come off as a hypocrite? There isn't anything wrong with it. But do you think this is the right forum for it? Why not shoot me an email? What's your reason for calling me a hypocrite in public? I'm reasonable. I'd have no problem engaging you in a civil manner through email.
Finally, when it comes to you, Carnap, I really do take this personal. You really seem to have an agenda. You seem to have an axe to grind. On a daily basis, you pick apart my readers -- rather than pick apart the topic we're discussing. People respond negatively to it. You don't care. Readers then send me emails telling me that you're a ______ (insert expletive).
I've tried to keep my blog civil. Being civil generally means that you don't treat people rudely. You treat people rudely. Maybe it's your way. Don't know.
Sadly, you're intelligent. You've clearly got something to contribute here. It seems obvious to me that you have no interest in being constructive here. You've got no interest in getting along with me or my readers.
And that I don't understand.
"I can't tell you how many sites I have been to where bloggers are writing "card reviews." There is no disclosure of that relationship."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you saying? Because they do it its okay? I'm well versed in the sleaze in the blog world, I get offers for people to write reviews for $$ all the time. Anyhow, most people aren't going to see where you disclosed the relationship and having ads doesn't make it obvious you are an affiliate. I can tell you I was NOT aware that you were affiliate nor did I even know they had an affiliate program until a few minutes ago. Of course, I knew the ads aren't there for free. But an affiliate relationship is different than simple ads, in the former case you're getting commissions rather thing $ per click. That is why you should be very careful to disclose it when you mention it.
Anyhow, its your choice. Just don't be surprised when people "question your credibility" because of it.
"I must have irritated you or said something that offended you."
You've never offended me, you go out of your way to be cordial Of course, going out of your way to be cordial is a bit irritating = ) But as I said before you've done nothing to piss me off etc etc. I'm not here to try to irritate you, nor do I have anything against you.
"Let me know when you get your own blog or column."
I love this sentiment. How do you know I don't have a blog or column? Because I don't pimp it here? But the idea that people that make positive claims are some how better than people that critique ideas is trite. Firstly an intelligent critique is far more useful than drivel. But more importantly, debate (and critics) are part of a dialectic progress.
You see, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that when I purpose ideas that they will get critiqued. The difference is I think critics are more revealing than a bunch of people agreeing with me. One learns little from compliance, only from dissonance will things become clear.
"Why not shoot me an email?"
ReplyDeleteIn the future, if it appears something is going to get drawn out like this I will response in e-mail.
Carnap, I am not unreasonable. Indeed, I have just put disclosures on the two FICO ads off to the right of the site (can't put one above the comment box for some reason). I never thought about doing that; maybe I should have. A simple email from you would have made me think about it. Anyhow, I do not want anyone to think that I am here to sell them an ad. So, thanks (even though I still would have appreciated an email).
ReplyDeleteCarnap, if you have a blog I'd love to know about it. As I have said in the past -- both on this site and in email -- you've clearly got something to contribute. I'd be interested in your blog, assuming you have one.
If you don't have an axe to grind, and you and I have not had words in the past, I can only take you at face value.
I really don't mind the disagreement on the site. As you said, intelligent critique is far more useful. But your style is off putting.
Haha, I just saw your "full disclosure" notice and I think you should make them bigger and they should blink in red. I think the disclosures on the ads perhaps go a bit too far! They are tacky and odd. I don't think many people do that, even those that are very open about their relationships with other companies.
ReplyDeleteI was more so complaining about what you did in this post, which was to essentially advertise for MyFico without disclosing your relationship with them (The paragraph after the image) in the post.
For example Mish gets money in a similar fashion from Gold money but doesn't state it on any ad on his blog. But he is very good about disclosing the relationship when he recommends them in a post.
Like you said, with the ad its pretty obvious you're getting some sort of benefit from it. But what isn't obvious is that you may benefit from talking up MyFico in a post, that is where the disclosure is needed to basically say "Hey, I may be a little biased because I have a relationship with the company".
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Personally, I don't think the ads are a big deal. Under the first read it seemed like you were being hypocritical (as the other poster mentioned), but when I read it again (after your explanation) it seems like it was just what you said...a joke.
Carnap, what can I say?? LOL. I'll have to try and figure out a way to make sure that my readers know that I do get $$ if they buy FICO products.
ReplyDeleteI am fairly new to reading blogs but I always thought that they got part of the money when they advertised. I never asked but always assumed. I don't think I have ever been on one that didn't have ads except for a few decorating blogs.
ReplyDeleteBack to the story. What was it about again?
DD, we're talking about the inaccuracies of the Forbes article. I see that Forbes has now chopped out the part about $100 and $260. The reporter acknowledged the error in the comments section.
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting us back on topic.
Marcus,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the article it surely was an eye opener.
That article was a terrible dis-service to possibly many unaware folks who might consider Forbes to be a reputable magazine that is supposed to provide sound advice.
That article was a train wreck that went off a cliff into a lava field, it should have never made it past the editors without fact checking and the numbers double checked. Shame on you Forbes for allowing this to be posted.
-sohowcome
I noticed the Forbes article removed the $100 per month and $260 per month figures. However nothing else in the article was changed; the other inaccuracies remain.
ReplyDeleteOT - if Marcus was writing "Don't use FICO" and running ads for MyFICO, then and only then would it be hypocritical.
Back on topic (we were discussing the Forbes article, remember?) - did anybody else notice that two of the comments on the Forbes article are links to scam sites? Talk about a lack of credibility. Why would Forbes allow these links to remain on their website for longer than 10 minutes?
FLT, I did see the comments section at Forbes. I delete all kinds of comments at my site -- all of them spam. You just never see them because they're removed within a minute of being posted. :)
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, Forbes is not alone in leaving scam-site links that are posted by readers. The Wall Street Journal does the same thing. They do not remove them. Not sure why. I run into them all the time on WSJ's site. I imagine other news sites are the same way.
As FLT mentioned, the other errors still remain in the story. Forbes has no credibility at this point with that particular story. The story, in its current form, should be purged. What's more, by leaving the story up, Forbes tells me that it does not care about its readers. And it's not as though Forbes is unaware of the situation. I'm aware that Forbes employees were reading this story yesterday.
ReplyDeleteAt least it is a little better than asking a question at Yahoo. I am really surprised that it is still up.
ReplyDeleteBTW - Link to this story, and your blog, was put up on BadMoneyAdvice.com :-)
ReplyDeletehttp://badmoneyadvice.com/2009/03/forbescom-taken-to-task.html
Sadly, I missed the back and forth with Carnap!
I'm always amazed by how insistent people can be when they simply don't get it. Anyone with half a brain knows you get something for having the ads on your site. I don't think that's a bad thing. You've certainly not spared them from criticism in the past, so I don't believe it affects your ability to report on them. And, for better or worse they are the ones that have the scores we all need. We're fortunate that you've decided to affiliate yourself with them only, as opposed to throwing ads up on the site just to get revenue from companies you may know little about or that may be shady. Those offended by the ads can use Adblock plus.
CS, I saw that badmoneyadvice pointed to my story. One of his new readers -- I wonder who that might be -- tipped him off to my story.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ads on my site, Carnap and I have worked it out. Nothing to see here any longer.
I have affiliated with other companies as well but I do not have experience with many of them. Until I do, I won't be putting them on the site. I won't put something on the site that I have not used myself.
You'll recall that one particular affiliate didn't want to be associated with my site because I was too critical of the card industry. Oh, well. I call them like I see them. I'm not going to pander to advertisers.
Read this story from last year (where I spelled out my affiliate relationships).
http://www.creditmattersblog.com/2008/10/creditmattersblogcom-will-never-sell.html
"Those offended by the ads can use Adblock plus."
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't the ads, most have ads. The problem is when you start to recommend/promote companies that you benefit from financially.
That is a conflict of interest, not so sure why you don't see that.
I think this is the article that Forbes was trying to write:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_wasik&sid=acOP83LMBST4
Carnap, I understand exactly what you're saying. But I see a difference in this case.
ReplyDeleteFirst, as far as I can remember the relationship has been clearly stated for all to read. Not all bloggers or reporters would do that. Besides, readers see the ads and know that there's a relationship and are then able, as you have done, to examine the content of the articles critically.
Importantly, though, I don't see that the posts on this blog recommend or promote MyFICO as much as they acknowledge that it is the ONLY place to go for consumers who even want to get close to knowing how a lender might be judging them. It isn't that Fair Isaac has a larger share of that market than anyone else. They completely dominate it. Anyone who reports on credit issues is aware of this and makes it clear that myfico is the only place to go, whether they get any money from saying it or not.
If it were another product that was constantly being talked about here and advertised here to the exclusion of other comparable products, I might feel differently. When he starts going on and on about how wonderful Bank of America is and how crappy everyone else is, and all the ads on the site are for a BofA card or something, then I'll be right there with you whining about it endlessly.
Until then, if CM can get a few extra bucks here and there by displaying ads on the blog for a product for which there is no alternative that he would be writing about and recommending anyway because it is the only halfway reliable means of comparison there is, then more power to him.
I'm not trying to argue that CM is actually being biased. He doesn't seem to be and I have no way of really knowing in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe only point is that its a conflict of interest when you start to actually recommend a company when you profit from people using it. That is different than simple ad revenue, rather he is getting commissions. The readers should be supplied with a disclosure of some sort (not one that is part of a post nobody has read) to make their own determination about it. That is all I'm saying.
Sorry, I didn't read through all the replies. But has forbes got a whiff of this post and as a result edit or pull the story?
ReplyDeleteForbes has read my story. It has yanked the faulty math out of the story already. Unfortunately, it has left the rest of the story intact. I guess it does not care if it is accurate or not.
ReplyDelete1 small step at a time. good job Marcus, keep up the great work.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Hk. It was nothing personal against Forbes, by the way. It's just that the story should not be on the site right now. It offers a lot of misinformation -- information that readers might believe.
ReplyDeleteCM, please send a giant STFU to Carnap for me.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that the Forbes article still is up with all its errors and misinformation. There have been two complete business days since you made your post and the author removed only the math errors that made her look incompetent, the items that are non-factual still remain.
And I love Forbes. I subscribe to the magazine and admire Steve Forbes and the staff for telling it like it is (removing the mark-to-market rule would help our economy as much or more than anything else and it would cost nothing) and being full of sound financial advice. Why would they allow this blemish to remain on their website?
FLT, not sure why Forbes would leave it up. Maybe the reporter hasn't said anything to an editor. Most papers and magazines would have rewritten the article or removed the inaccurate material.
ReplyDelete"Why would they allow this blemish to remain on their website?"
ReplyDeleteBecause their website is already a piece of poo filled with misinformation?
You know, like that changing a certain accounting rule is going to magically fix an economy. Perhaps, we could do this with stocks too. That way nobody would lose any money in their retirement account.
But perhaps you were being sarcastic...
"The two most important factors, just for the record, are payment history and utilization. "
ReplyDeleteAnd how much can a recent collection blow your score? Recent negative events hold a lot of points. Put a couple of recent collections on top of perfect prior history and compare that to less history and utilization without the collections. And even paid collections still hang with you.
The FICO pie chart is basic percentages, but not much use for specific scores. Those percentages will vary greatly depending on the wide variety of credit history possible. Take, for example, no revolving and two lates versus 1 year of revolving and 22 inquiries. General overall percentages become almost meaningless for an individual's situation.
Finally, web advertisers don't "sponsor" an article any more than google advertisers sponsor web content where they appear.
Right now, at the bottom of this page of yours, I see:
See Your Credit Report
A Good Credit Score = 700 or Above. See Yours in 2 Easy Steps for $0!
www.FreeCreditReport.com
And ads for: FreeCreditReportsInstantly.com, www.FreeCreditReport.com, www.myFICO.com, www.LexingtonLaw.com/CreditDispute
DId they sponsor this article of yours?