Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A number of studies show Blacks and Hispanics do have lower credit scores but if it was due to race then ALL poor Blacks would have a low score. Here is a study about the topic.
I know what you mean, especially in some parts of Florida.
Yet, again acturarial sciences have determined that male teens/ young adults have the most accidents which is why they pay higher premiums.
One-size-fits-all lazy underwriting drives me nuts. I bet the honor students have a substantially lower accident/claim rate than the dropouts and the D students.
It would seem to show that, as a general rule, blacks and hispanics are poorer money managers than whites. Like everything else about race, it's pretty pointless. Every race is composed of individuals, it is the person that makes the difference, not their race.
Without data specific to money management it would seem to show that the bold statement above is racist.
Earlier in this thread I have shown reasons having nothing to do with money managment blacks and Hispanics in general, have lower credit scores than whites.
What I'm finding more telling about the list of towns is that almost all of the top towns with the credit scores are from the midwest. So instead of racially based, it's more location based... The two exceptions San Francisco (silicon valley) and Boston (highly educated) being the exceptions..
Looks like AGE distribution has a lot to do with credit scores. Young people are moving away from - not into - most towns in the Midwest. Young people are moving into the Bay Area and a number of othger mostly coastal towns.
A town where the median age is 23 can't compete on credit scores with a town where the median age is 45.
Actuarial sciences have determined that people with lower credit scores are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents and make claims. It has nothing to do with paying the premium.
The more prior and relatively recent claims, regardless of credit score, will also impact the premium being charged.
Nothing wrong with charging people more if they are more likely to make a claim.
What if college graduates with low credit scores are less likely than high school graduates with low credit scores to be involved in accidents and make claims? Should I be have to pay a higher premium because insurers are too lazy to property underwrite insurance?
The culprit is the increased low down payment mortgage loans made to low-income and/or high risk borrowers.
How could that NOT end in anything but financial system disaster when the inevitable happened and those loans began defaulting en masse?
Why did they default? Did the borrowers mismanage their money? I live very frugally on a poverty level income; I can easily afford a much higher proportion of my income for housing than other people because most other people spend too much on other things. (At one point when I had a very low income, I paid 73% of my income on shelter, with no delinquencies on any bills.)
Why exactly should I be denied a loan (bad ratio) because other people mismanage their money?
Getting someone to finance that purchase depends, in part, on your credit score.
The rare bird, who has not previously established credit, is typically counselled to build credit before applying for a mortgage. Those who choose not to do so, are always free to pay cash.
Has nothing to do with paying cash. I've done the math and have calculated I can afford only a tiny house on a tiny piece of land, but nobody is allowed to sell me a home I can afford.
Just like you people in 1% land use zoning regs to keep out the masses, the other 99% use zoning to keep the poor from buying homes they can afford.
The solution to affordable home ownership is not the failed liberal solution of forcing lenders to make high risk loans. The solution is to allow the private sector the economic liberty to sell homes people can actually afford to buy.
Let's be scientific about this. High scores in the Midwest, lower scores in the south. Unless you have correlating stats on the racial makeups of the low scoring towns vs the high scoring towns this is all Journal of Extroita Teus Anum.
BTW 700 isn't that bad these days.
Um, those are Vantage sores, not FICO scores. Vantage scores are considerably higher than FICO scores; I think that 700 score is comparable to about a 600 FICO, which impresses nobody.
And racial makeup correlates with AGE, and age correlates negatively with credit score (because length of credit history is a factor in credit scoring). So places with high black population will start with lower credit scores before anything else is considered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
