My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem.
Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.
Yeah, instead of getting my lender to give me a better interest rate or a discount on fees, I'm going to instead use my negotiating leverage to make sure Equifax makes $20 less revenue.
If you're in the position to be buying a house, voting is basically free. Ignoring a credit score when applying for a mortgage can be considerably more expensive.
Yes, but only a small demographic that actually votes.
If only 1% of the population actually votes, elected representatives will tend to represent that 1%. If you cede the centre ground you get extremists.
Say what you like about Trump, he managed to get his target demographic fired up and out to vote. $boring_reasonable_politician doesn't have the same ability by their nature to get people fired up, but we still need to vote for them.
When you say "$boring_reasonable_politician" I think Joe Biden. <yawn>
If what Trump did last election was getting them fired up, then this election they are going nuclear. Check out the massive waves of people at his rallies versus the trickles at the Dem's gatherings.
The next election is going to be decided by about 5% of the country that’s contested. Everyone else might as well not even bother filling in the box for president
Wasn't a problem? What do you think is more likely:
1) They didn't follow company procedure of which big banks insist employees follow otherwise the employees risk 'liability for not picking the 3 credit agencies'. Or
2) They lied and followed company procedure, and not tell you the outcome from them.
3) Your lender probably passed the request and got 1) or 2) later in the chain.
You mean, they insist you have to use Equifax, lose the deal, then then wonder what’s for lunch in the cafeteria today. Or most likely of all, every lender insists you have to use Equifax, and the people you interact with have no authority to even run your request up a management chain, let alone actually honor it.
In my experience, nobody cares. I remember how long it took before Netflix finally supported a player on Linux desktop. And in the end, their decision had zero to do with customer demand or complaints for that feature.
You can log reasons for bad business outcomes all day long, millions and millions, and it won’t change corporate behavior.
Just pointing out that this analogy doesn't hold. Netflix's customer base running desktop Linux are a rounding error for the foreseeable future. 99% of any lender's customers would be at least somewhat pleased to drop Equifax and none of them receive any benefit from using Equifax's service over their competitors.
The amount of people who will actually demand a lender to omit Equifax is also complete roundoff error and insignificant compared with political dealing etc.
Whatever it is, it’s just a fact of human behavior, and to understand the world around us, we ought to be honest about such facts and investigate how best to live in a world where such facts are true.
For instance, it might suggest that championing a grassroots boycott effort is a waste of time, and that perhaps putting that effort to lobby for laws by which these types of privacy breaches result in automatic prison time or high personal fines is a better option? Also not likely to succeed, but perhaps much more likely than asking rando consumers to not defect in their personal prisoner’s dilemma game with an unmoving corporate behemoth.
you realize you can say the wildest most unsophisticated things and they’ll just punch the numbers into a machine and get a “lend to this guy or not” result either way right?
