Who uses Equifax/Transunion?

[edwardalex]

I know there was another list circulating but I wanted to see if there were any updated lists around.

If anyone has one, pls post.

Here's what I've found:

Transunion
==========
RBC
AMEX
CTFS
MBNA (though they may pull equifax if there is not enough info on TU)
ROGERS

Equifax
========
TD
CIBC
ScotiaBank
BMO
National Bank
Wells Fargo

[McGobbler]

I can confirm MBNA is Transunion as I just did identity confirmation for an app and they alluded to Transunion.

[boyoflondon]

TD Canada Trust (TD) Visa - Uses Equifax Canada primarily.
Royal Bank (RBC) Visa - Uses Trans Union of Canada primarily
Bank of Montreal (BMO) MasterCard - Uses Equifax Canada
ScotiaBank Visa - Uses Equifax Canada
CIBC Visa - Uses Equifax Canada
Capital One - Uses Trans Union
Citi Canada - Uses Equifax Canada

[brunes]

Everyone "reports" to both however, correct?

[elle505]

I'm pretty sure Capital One uses both. Has this changed?

[Donomight25]

Trans Union and Equifax are used by all companies for REPORTING services.

As for initial credit checks, the underwriter would usually pull a TU for past credit history and a soft tap for Equifax for employment/address history.

If the creditor pulls an Equifax for the initial check, a soft tap TU is pulled as well.

[cashinstinct]

Hard hits (credit purpose)
Telus uses Equifax - hard hit (but does not report account after it is open)

Cambrian Credit Union uses Equifax - hard hit


Communauto (car sharing in Quebec) uses Transunion - hard hit (but does not report account after it is open)

Citibank can use both Equifax and Transunion - hard hit (hard it on both reports for a student card at least...)

SOFT HITS (info only, no impact on credit score or decisions...)
- National Bank Insurance: Equifax
- Futureshop and Bestbuy : Equifax
- TD insurance: Equifax


- Belair Direct: Transunion
- National Bank: Transunion (sometimes Equifax)
- Bank of Nova Scotia: Transunion
- TD Meloche: Transunion
- Telus: Transunion (verify address)
- ING Diret Canada: Transunion
- Imperial Oil: Transunion (verify address)

[nalababe]

Does it really matter?

Credit scores are only a small piece of the overall puzzle. Ours is crap but we still got rates equal to anything that was being posted on RFD by people with scores 100+ points higher...

[brunes]

Does it really matter?

Credit scores are only a small piece of the overall puzzle. Ours is crap but we still got rates equal to anything that was being posted on RFD by people with scores 100+ points higher...

Credit score is not very important to your rate, at least not as people would have you believe. As long as your score is about 600-650 you will all get the same rates. It is when your score drops below that number you start seeing higher rates and declined loans.

[sslinn]

Your credit score is a big part of what lenders look at when they lend you money. It shows your history and ability/inability to pay back your debts. The higher your score is the easier it is to obtain additional, competitively priced credit. If we go back a couple of years you could not get a no down payment mortgage without a score of 680 or better. CMHC still uses 680 as the guideline to maximize your borrowing power.

That being said, as long as your credit is average you shouldn't have any issues. If you pay all of your debts on time and don't carry high balances on your accounts you will be fine. Miss a few payments and you will have some issues that only time will fix.

[Paulfistinyourface]

-MBNA will pull both bureaus. They did with me last winter. And a bunch of other people at another forum I frequent said they did the same thing. Kind of a dick thing to do, but it's MBNA so it makes sense.

-Scotia will pull TU if you apply online. In branch can be either. If you apply by phone they like to pull EQ.

[nalababe]

Credit score is not very important to your rate, at least not as people would have you believe. As long as your score is about 600-650 you will all get the same rates. It is when your score drops below that number you start seeing higher rates and declined loans.

Of course, at 690 (our equifax score) we were in the bottom 15% of people in the country....so really most people in the country are doing fine. In the end with our poor score we were matching the best rates people were getting at the time (as posted on the other threads).

According to our broker (which we didn't use) and the bank our income and equity were far, far more important....

[sslinn]

690 is far from a "crappy" score. Obvviously if you don't have the income to service the debt your income is far more important. Equity? I don't think it would be that important. With 680 you would qualify for nothing down today.

Everyone's situation is unique. If you are self employed things change.

[mikeymike1]

Your credit score is a big part of what lenders look at when they lend you money. It shows your history and ability/inability to pay back your debts. The higher your score is the easier it is to obtain additional, competitively priced credit. If we go back a couple of years you could not get a no down payment mortgage without a score of 680 or better. CMHC still uses 680 as the guideline to maximize your borrowing power.

No not necessarily
Credit score can be a main factor with some credit that your seeking for and a very minimal factor with other credit.
If you're applying for a credit car they will only look at credit score and thats all matters to them.
If you are applying for an auto loan or an installment loan of any sort then the overall score means very little. TDSR is king here. We turn down dozens of applicants a week because their TDSR percentage is too high.
If you don't have the capacity upon applying it would be a big disservice for any automotive finance lender to do so and push you into financial hardships including bankruptcy




That being said, as long as your credit is average you shouldn't have any issues. If you pay all of your debts on time and don't carry high balances on your accounts you will be fine. Miss a few payments and you will have some issues that only time will fix.

As what i've already said above there is way too much emphases put on Credit Score. TDSR is also the main factor when applying for a mortgage. Your so called high score will be trumped by marginal capacity
And 'high balances' are very subjective to the CC's limit as it is also subjective to one income.

[sslinn]

No not necessarily
Credit score can be a main factor with some credit that your seeking for and a very minimal factor with other credit.
If you're applying for a credit car they will only look at credit score and thats all matters to them.
If you are applying for an auto loan or an installment loan of any sort then the overall score means very little. TDSR is king here. We turn down dozens of applicants a week because their TDSR percentage is too high.
If you don't have the capacity upon applying it would be a big disservice for any automotive finance lender to do so and push you into financial hardships including bankruptcy

Fair enough, but if you don't meet the TDSR for any loan you are out of luck. You buy a smaller house or car. Correct me if I am wrong, but as you clients credit score decreases their rates increase? Do you ever turn down people with bad credit? You are making it sound like the score doesn't matter at all.


As what i've already said above there is way too much emphases put on Credit Score. TDSR is also the main factor when applying for a mortgage. Your so called high score will be trumped by marginal capacity
And 'high balances' are very subjective to the CC's limit as it is also subjective to one income.

Again, with mortgages, if you are forced to go to a B lender because you have poor credit, your rate is going up. Your high score may be trumped by marginal capacity, but your high score also increases your capacity. High balances reflect directly on the score itself.

At the end of the day those with better credit scores will have an easier time getting approved for credit and the credit they are approved for will be better priced.

[mikeymike1]

Fair enough, but if you don't meet the TDSR for any loan you are out of luck. You buy a smaller house or car.

A lot of the time yes they can buy a smaller house or car but 'most' of the time they can't. Their main issue is 'income'.
We see a lot of east indian and asian families where the wives just do not work. They already have one car thats financed yet they want another car for the wife to cart the kids around, drive them to school etc.
They pay all their loans and credit cards on time and have 600+ credit scores.
Their capacity is over the required minimum. Guess what happens next? they ain't getting a car or a mortgage. This happens all the time



Correct me if I am wrong, but as you clients credit score decreases their rates increase? Do you ever turn down people with bad credit? You are making it sound like the score doesn't matter at all.

Again, score means nothing if they don't have the capacity. Low rate , high rate... its irrelevant
And yes we turn down hundreds of people per month due to poor credit. (R5, R7, R8 repos, R9/I9, BK, collections etc)



Again, with mortgages, if you are forced to go to a B lender because you have poor credit, your rate is going up. Your high score may be trumped by marginal capacity, but your high score also increases your capacity. High balances reflect directly on the score itself.
Yes sub-prime/near sub-prime lenders will always be of a higher interest rate.

Please make note of this.... High score DO NOT INCREASE capacity.
Lots of University students have high scores. They pay their credit cards on time. But they are UNEMPLOYED and are not gainfully employed. They would have NO CAPACITY whatsoever.

Another word on 'high balances'. Its very subjective and often misused within the scoring system. Part of the scores is devised of credit utilization. Unfortunately someone with a $950 balance on a $1000 credit limit will score poorly as to one with a $950 balance to a $5000 credit limit CC.







At the end of the day those with better credit scores will have an easier time getting approved for credit and the credit they are approved for will be better priced.

Yes a high score will allow them to get approved for 'credit cards' easier. But thats credit cards. They don't have to perform TDSR equations.
Auto loans and Mortgages do have to follow TDSR equations so NO better credit scores dows not automatically give you a free ticket to such loans.


Heres another example, we have been getting a lot of applicants from the Insurance sector that have been laid off. Their employers supplied them with company demo cars that they had to give back.
They apply for an auto loan at a franchised dealer that gets faxed to us. His credit is excellent but he's on EI or is working part time on top of the EI. We decline him for financing period!
No capacity, not gainfully employed. Yet his credit rating is 850+. This is a common occurrence. More often than you think

[sslinn]

A lot of the time yes they can buy a smaller house or car but 'most' of the time they can't. Their main issue is 'income'.

No income, no loan. Small income, small loan - not enough to qualify for car or home. Common sense, everyone here gets it.


Again, score means nothing if they don't have the capacity. Low rate , high rate... its irrelevant

If they have the capacity and bad credit they will receive a higher rate than someone with good credit. I would see good credit as important in this case. Wouldn't you? I wouldn't say the difference between 6% and 9% is irrelevant.


Please make note of this.... High score DO NOT INCREASE capacity.

You may want to look this up as you are wrong. Those employed, have some capacity. If their credit is above 680 their capacity increases as their allowable does increase TDS/GDS increase. *** For mortgages ***


Another word on 'high balances'. Its very subjective and often misused within the scoring system. Part of the scores is devised of credit utilization. Unfortunately someone with a $950 balance on a $1000 credit limit will score poorly as to one with a $950 balance to a $5000 credit limit CC.

I will concede that I didn't word this properly and you are correct.


More often than you think

I don't think about this at all. Little or no income = no loan. Pretty basic.

[mikeymike1]

You may want to look this up as you are wrong. Those employed, have some capacity. If their credit is above 680 their capacity increases as their allowable does increase TDS/GDS increase. *** For mortgages ***

I think you are getting Credit Utilization Capacity confused with Income Capacity.
If you are presuming that "capacity increases" as "allowables increase" (which I think you are) then that is the main problem with our scoring system. And that is the main reason why my bank is lobbying for credit scoring reform in Canada.

example: We have 2 clients each making same income, same tenure, same CC's.
Client A has 3 CC's each with $10k limits on each card. He has a total debt of $5000 between all cards.(16.5%)
Client B has 3 same CC's but has 2K limits on each card. He also has a total debt of $5000 between all cards.(84%)

Client A will have a higher credit score on Equifax than Client B.
Reason why? because Credit Utilization is equated within the scoring.

For example, each one could be at 40% TDSR income capacity and rightfully so not be able to afford another car loan. But because Client A's overall score is higher, "some banks" so readily ignore Income Capacity and approve him anyways because the 'Credit Score' reflects that its somewhat doable when really its not.

Credit Utilization/Total Debt to Loan is made up of 30% of your scoring. Thats gotta change, especially for revolving credit accounts

[sslinn]

I think you are getting Credit Utilization Capacity confused with Income Capacity.
If you are presuming that "capacity increases" as "allowables increase" (which I think you are) then that is the main problem with our scoring system. And that is the main reason why my bank is lobbying for credit scoring reform in Canada.

example: We have 2 clients each making same income, same tenure, same CC's.
Client A has 3 CC's each with $10k limits on each card. He has a total debt of $5000 between all cards.(16.5%)
Client B has 3 same CC's but has 2K limits on each card. He also has a total debt of $5000 between all cards.(84%)

Client A will have a higher credit score on Equifax than Client B.
Reason why? because Credit Utilization is equated within the scoring.

For example, each one could be at 40% TDSR income capacity and rightfully so not be able to afford another car loan. But because Client A's overall score is higher, "some banks" so readily ignore Income Capacity and approve him anyways because the 'Credit Score' reflects that its somewhat doable when really its not.

Credit Utilization/Total Debt to Loan is made up of 30% of your scoring. Thats gotta change, especially for revolving credit accounts

I don't know where the "allowable "word came from??? Odd.

I want to get back on track. A person's credit rating is important. If both of your above clients make $80K a year and A has a score of 690 and B has a score of 660 client A is qualifying for an additional $90K for a mortgage. Big difference.

A person's credit rating is important. It may no be the end all be all, but it is important. Do they really have to change it to make it fair? If someone only qualifies for a $2,000 limit on a credit card that is the way it is. Building a credit score takes time.

[mikeymike1]

I don't know where the "allowable "word came from??? Odd.

I want to get back on track. A person's credit rating is important.

Yes I agree the 'score' is important. (thou I never said it wasn't) BUT there is too much emphases put on it as an overall qualifier





If both of your above clients make $80K a year and A has a score of 690 and B has a score of 660 client A is qualifying for an additional $90K for a mortgage. Big difference.

Thank you.
You have just proved my point.

You are qualifying a client purely on 'score' which is wrong and THATS WHY we are lobbying for credit score reform. If you are a mortgage lender then i'll say shame on you !!!

That extra 90K mortgage equates to a much higher monthly mortgage payment. And if both clients were 'marginal' at time of application then its possible that 90K more mortgage can push him/her into bankruptcy if its not financially managed properly. (as per presuming both A and B clients finances are exactly equal)

We will be finished with our 5year financial study at the end of Dec 2010.
Our financial study is mainly targeting and focusing into why and how people go bankrupt in this country.
'Qualifying on score' is a BIG problem within the system in general. period. Thats in the US as well as here in Canada.
Less emphases on score is a must to prevent the Canadian bankruptcy rate (2.8/thousand)





A person's credit rating is important. It may no be the end all be all, but it is important. Do they really have to change it to make it fair? If someone only qualifies for a $2,000 limit on a credit card that is the way it is. Building a credit score takes time.

The importance of the Credit Rating should only be a qualifier for 'RISK'

Too many lenders use the credit score as an qualifier ONLY to lend out more money. Like piling on the pancakes
You proved this on your first statement above.
Too many neglect the fundamental equations of TDSR income capacity qualifying.

Lastly, sure building a credit score takes time. But if his score continues to rise up 50-70 points within 5 years but his income is stagnant (within those same 5 years)... it doesnt mean he should be approved for a larger loan in the 5th year as opposed to the 1st year. (because his credit score is higher)
His approved loan/mortgage amount should be predicated on income and income alone. Not score

[sslinn]

You are qualifying a client purely on 'score' which is wrong and THATS WHY we are lobbying for credit score reform. If you are a mortgage lender then i'll say shame on you !!!

That extra 90K mortgage equates to a much higher monthly mortgage payment. And if both clients were 'marginal' at time of application then its possible that 90K more mortgage can push him/her into bankruptcy if its not financially managed properly. (as per presuming both A and B clients finances are exactly equal)


Client A is doing a better job managing his/her current available credit compared to client B, they deserve more leeway. I am a mortgage broker, but why do you have issues with lenders? Lenders and mortgage insurers set guidelines based on their risk. If their experience is that people with lower credit scores are more likely to default on their mortgage payments why would they lend them more money? Do you know how much higher the payment would be? Anyone can run up their debt and be pushed into bankruptcy, you can't blame lenders for this.



Too many lenders use the credit score as an qualifier ONLY to lend out more money. Like piling on the pancakes
You proved this on your first statement above.

If a person has a good credit score and history they have obviously shown that they are less of a risk and lenders and insurers will give them more money.


Too many neglect the fundamental equations of TDSR income capacity qualifying.

Few lenders neglect a persons TDSR when qualifying them. There is equity lending, but the risk is mitigated because they have a low LTV.


Lastly, sure building a credit score takes time. But if his score continues to rise up 50-70 points within 5 years but his income is stagnant (within those same 5 years)... it doesnt mean he should be approved for a larger loan in the 5th year as opposed to the 1st year. (because his credit score is higher)
His approved loan/mortgage amount should be predicated on income and income alone. Not score

He has 5 additional years of using credit responsibly, hence his score goes up. He has shown he is less of a risk, he deserves more money.

I find it odd that you are in auto finance and your company is doing a 5 year study. Your company makes money by lending money I find it hard to believe that what you are doing will be in the best interest of the general public. What company are you with?

[mikeymike1]

Client A is doing a better job managing his/her current available credit compared to client B, they deserve more leeway. I am a mortgage broker, but why do you have issues with lenders? Lenders and mortgage insurers set guidelines based on their risk. If their experience is that people with lower credit scores are more likely to default on their mortgage payments why would they lend them more money? Do you know how much higher the payment would be? Anyone can run up their debt and be pushed into bankruptcy, you can't blame lenders for this.

You are now changing the subject
We have already concluded that client A and client B have exactly the same financial background, income, tenure. Read back a few posts.

You are a broker. I work at the bank itself. One of the big 5. I've been in automotive finance for over 16years and I currently manage the automotive financial division at the bank I work for and am a registered Equifax member. I highly doubt you're a registered Equifax member. I have access to ePort do you??
I don't have issues with lenders. I have issues with the process of how lenders qualify clients for financing. And your postings have proved how alarming they can be.




If a person has a good credit score and history they have obviously shown that they are less of a risk and lenders and insurers will give them more money.

Again, score does not justify over extending ones ability to service the loan/mortgage

You just proved you do such a thing in your past posting stating someone with a higher score qualifies for 90k more mortgage.




He has 5 additional years of using credit responsibly, hence his score goes up. He has shown he is less of a risk, he deserves more money.

re-read my posting.
The client makes the same income in year 1 and year 5. If his TDSR is 35% at year 1 and same at year 5 then his approved loan amount should not be significantly be higher as you are insinuating.





I find it odd that you are in auto finance and your company is doing a 5 year study. Your company makes money by lending money I find it hard to believe that what you are doing will be in the best interest of the general public. What company are you with?

It is not odd because as a manager I have privy to other departments. We often communicate with our revolving credit dept for clarification of derogatory trade lines.

The study involves auto finance, insurance groups, mortgages and its impact on the bankruptcy itself. As does the BK involve revolving credit and lot of other financial issues. This study also includes CAMH and the psychological impacts on BK's. Far more than you can probably understand.
If you find that hard to believe thats ok, YOU DON'T work for a bank.
And no one makes money if people go into bankruptcy. Only the BK Trustees end up walking away with a pocket full.
Lastly, as I said above. I manage the automotive finance division for our bank. Its one of the main 5 financial institutions in Canada. The new car and used car dealer network we service is one of the largest of any other financier.
And what we are doing with the study and the lobbying for credit scoring reform is indeed in the best interest of the general public.

[sslinn]

You are now changing the subject
We have already concluded that client A and client B have exactly the same financial background, income, tenure. Read back a few posts.

Not changing the subject at all. Client A is doing a better job of managing the credit available to him than client B.


You are a broker. I work at the bank itself. One of the big 5. I've been in automotive finance for over 16years and I currently manage the automotive financial division at the bank I work for and am a registered Equifax member. I highly doubt you're a registered Equifax member. I have access to ePort do you??
I don't have issues with lenders. I have issues with the process of how lenders qualify clients for financing. And your postings have proved how alarming they can be.

Does you being a registered Equifax member have to do with our debate? I passed the CFP exam on my first attempt. Just tit for tat there, it doesn't have anything to do with our debate.


Again, score does not justify over extending ones ability to service the loan/mortgage

You just proved you do such a thing in your past posting stating someone with a higher score qualifies for 90k more mortgage.


"Over extending" is very subjective. It is unique to an individual. Lifestyles differ. Personal circumstances differ.


The client makes the same income in year 1 and year 5. If his TDSR is 35% at year 1 and same at year 5 then his approved loan amount should not be significantly be higher as you are insinuating.

His allowed TDSR may increase by 2%, his allowed GDSR may increase by 9%. This is dependent on where his credit score started out at.


It is not odd because as a manager I have privy to other departments. We often communicate with our revolving credit dept for clarification of derogatory trade lines.

With all of your "credentials" why do you need to communicate with anyone for clarification?


The study involves auto finance, insurance groups, mortgages and its impact on the bankruptcy itself. As does the BK involve revolving credit and lot of other financial issues. This study also includes CAMH and the psychological impacts on BK's. Far more than you can probably understand.
If you find that hard to believe thats ok, YOU DON'T work for a bank.
And no one makes money if people go into bankruptcy. Only the BK Trustees end up walking away with a pocket full.
Lastly, as I said above. I manage the automotive finance division for our bank. Its one of the main 5 financial institutions in Canada. The new car and used car dealer network we service is one of the largest of any other financier.
And what we are doing with the study and the lobbying for credit scoring reform is indeed in the best interest of the general public.

You are right I don't work for a bank, I work for my clients.

The motivation for anything a bank or any business does is profit and profit only.

[TodayHello]

Bickering aside this has been an informative thread!

[liorsyncro]

These days creditors look for a lot more than just the score, especially for unsecured debt. I've done a mortgage for an applicant with a 790 beacon but because their file was active for only 18 months, I had to shop around a bit as some A-lenders were hesitant. And that's for a secured loan!
So it goes to show that having a high Fico or Empirica doesn't necessarily mean easy approval. Even with my own score, Equifax's report suggested that because there is no installment loan on my file it affects my score! WTF!! So my score is affected when I'm not seeking credit?! That doesn't make any sense. I think that credit scores are outright fraudulent. A record is ok, a score is a huge marketing fraud.

[Aske001]

Ally uses Equifax when you open a new account with them.


ING Direct Canada: Transunion

Are you sure about that? Because I notice that ING has the same minor discrepancy in my personal information that Equifax has (Ally told me about it).

[sslinn]

These days creditors look for a lot more than just the score, especially for unsecured debt. I've done a mortgage for an applicant with a 790 beacon but because their file was active for only 18 months, I had to shop around a bit as some A-lenders were hesitant. And that's for a secured loan!
So it goes to show that having a high Fico or Empirica doesn't necessarily mean easy approval. Even with my own score, Equifax's report suggested that because there is no installment loan on my file it affects my score! WTF!! So my score is affected when I'm not seeking credit?! That doesn't make any sense. I think that credit scores are outright fraudulent. A record is ok, a score is a huge marketing fraud.

Don't be me wrong, lenders will look at the history as well as the score. I am guessing that mortgage would not have been approved if the applicant had a 620 beacon with 18 months history. Your thoughts?

I just don't want people to read this thread or others and think that their credit score is not important, because it is. Pay your bills on time and try not to carry balances on your credit accounts. That is good for your credit and overall financial health.

[mikeymike1]

Not changing the subject at all. Client A is doing a better job of managing the credit available to him than client B.
Yes you are.
Please refer back to my posting #18

As well as refer back to posting #20 where I said...

"Thank you... You have just proved my point"




Does you being a registered Equifax member have to do with our debate?
You questioned the financial study my bank is performing as 'odd' as well as questioned what company I work for. So, i'm only disclosing a bit of my background to confirm the validity of my comments.



I passed the CFP exam on my first attempt. Just tit for tat there, it doesn't have anything to do with our debate.
Im going to presume that CFP (Certified Financial Planner) designation is what you are talking about.
If this is so then I wouldn't brag too much about it as the CFP certificates are not regulated or recognized in all of Canada (except Quebec)

As quoted by FPSC - anyone can call themselves a "financial planner"... and not everyone is even qualified




With all of your "credentials" why do you need to communicate with anyone for clarification?
Please learn to read more carefully as I said 'we' as to imply my dept. From time to time our agents will see derogatory and/or particulars of interest where investigation is needed.

If a customer walks into a used car dealer, buys a car and requests the dealer to source their recommended financial institutes for financial approval its not unusual for that paper to be sent to us. At times we do periodically discover clients with past write-offs. This is where we now notate new current address and employment and forward info to collections depts/skip tracers.





You are right I don't work for a bank, I work for my clients.
Oh please don't try to come across like you are the holy of holy's.
In my years ive seen my fair share of brokers (automotive and mortgage) who shotgun clients credit applications to 3, 4, 5 different institutions for a financing.
Some of the practices as this end up hurting the client overall rating. Don't tell me you don't do this either.
Brokers of any sort are not sworn into the same rules and regulations and privacy laws that bank personnel must adhere to. Iv'e been to many various brokers offices where ive witnessed credit applications and copies of bureaus strewn out in the open. And extreme poor security for customers personal information.




The motivation for anything a bank or any business does is profit and profit only.
Are you insinuating you are not in it for profit??? working for the good of the client perhaps?? pffft
You're in it for the 2% or 3% at closing plain and simple !

[sslinn]

You questioned the financial study my bank is performing as 'odd' as well as questioned what company I work for. So, i'm only disclosing a bit of my background to confirm the validity of my comments.

Making statements that you can't prove in an open forum doesn't validate anything, but I will concede that you work for a bank and have some knowledge. I don't agree with some of your opinions.


Im going to presume that CFP (Certified Financial Planner) designation is what you are talking about.
If this is so then I wouldn't brag too much about it as the CFP certificates are not regulated or recognized in all of Canada (except Quebec)

As quoted by FPSC - anyone can call themselves a "financial planner"... and not everyone is even qualified

CFP certificates are regulated by the FPSC. Anyone can call themselves a financial planner, but not everyone can call themselves a Certified Financial Planner. You should really do some research because you are not making a point with this at all. Have a read: http://www.fpsc.ca/cfp-certification

Here is the Reader's Digest version:

Since financial planning is not regulated in most Canadian provinces, anyone can call themselves a "financial planner"; but not everyone who refers to themselves as a planner is indeed qualified. In the absence of government regulation, Canadians seeking competent and ethical financial planning services should look for the CFP mark. CFP certification provides assurance that the planner is committed to internationally-recognized professional standards of competence, ethics and practice as set and enforced in Canada by FPSC.


Oh please don't try to come across like you are the holy of holy's.
In my years ive seen my fair share of brokers (automotive and mortgage) who shotgun clients credit applications to 3, 4, 5 different institutions for a financing.
Some of the practices as this end up hurting the client overall rating. Don't tell me you don't do this either.
Brokers of any sort are not sworn into the same rules and regulations and privacy laws that bank personnel must adhere to. Iv'e been to many various brokers offices where ive witnessed credit applications and copies of bureaus strewn out in the open. And extreme poor security for customers personal information.

Everyone has to live with their ethics in their business. I sleep very well at night knowing I put my clients first. I would suggest that you call the privacy folks in your province if you feel there are issues. If you don't you are accepting it. Stop by my office some time and tell me what you see. Mortgage reps in banks face fare less regulation than mortgage brokers.


Are you insinuating you are not in it for profit??? working for the good of the client perhaps?? pffft
You're in it for the 2% or 3% at closing plain and simple !

Of course I get paid, but the client's best interests still come first. If your mortgage staff are getting 2% or 3% please send me an application. This must be why banks don't offer the best rates to their clients.

Maybe actually helping people does not appeal to you, but it does to me. My clients walk away far more educated than they will from any bank. At the end of the day, yes I care.

[mikeymike1]

CFP certificates are regulated by the FPSC. Anyone can call themselves a financial planner, but not everyone can call themselves a Certified Financial Planner. You should really do some research because you are not making a point with this at all. Have a read: http://www.fpsc.ca/cfp-certification

Here is the Reader's Digest version:

Since financial planning is not regulated in most Canadian provinces, anyone can call themselves a "financial planner"; but not everyone who refers to themselves as a planner is indeed qualified. In the absence of government regulation, Canadians seeking competent and ethical financial planning services should look for the CFP mark. CFP certification provides assurance that the planner is committed to internationally-recognized professional standards of competence, ethics and practice as set and enforced in Canada by FPSC.

You pretty well answered your own questions
CFP is not government regulated. Which means there is no per-se watch-dog as to how the FPSC conducts itself.
An institution with a non regulatory body will always have major faults and fraudulent activity.

Are you an agent of the brokerage? Im going to presume you are as you so boast the CFP designation. As an agent I highly doubt you were subject to a credit check as well as a criminal background check. I think i'd be correct here.
Being unregulated means security issues like this are more the norm than the exception.

No formal educational requirements to call yourself a Financial Planner or to get that CFP Certificate? As well no regulation in Canada. How sad is that?





Everyone has to live with their ethics in their business. I sleep very well at night knowing I put my clients first. I would suggest that you call the privacy folks in your province if you feel there are issues. If you don't you are accepting it. Stop by my office some time and tell me what you see.

Im very aware of the FPC(Fed Office of the Privacy Comm) as well as the FSCO (Financial Services Comm Ontario) and privacy breaches are mainly caused by Mortgage Brokers all across Ontario. and Canada.

If you were in this industry last year then you would know the issues.
But incase you weren't paying attention, i'll remind you


FSCO Has Suspended 79 Brokers in Ontario
http://www.toronto-mortgage.ca/consumer-protection/fsco-has-suspended-79-brokers-news-week-ending-feb2709

GTA brokerages being investigated: Globe and Mail
http://www.mortgagebrokernews.ca/news/gta-brokerages-being-investigated-globe-and-mail/36953

"The audit resulted from 15 notifications of privacy breaches involving brokerages' handling of personal financial information"
"tremendous fraud going on in the broker industry"

Mortgage brokers suspended
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/593828
"The provincial government has moved to suspend the licences of dozens of mortgage brokers in the most sweeping disciplinary action since the advent of new regulatory legislation"

Feds probe mortgage brokerages
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/feds-probe-mortgage-brokerages/article1270265/
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario received a number of complaints from mortgage brokerages regarding fraudulent activities - agents who were fraudulently accessing clients' credit information without proper authorization.


Heres a list of suspended Mortgage Brokers from FSCO
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/licensing/mebonline/enforce/mortgage/brokerages/default.asp
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/licensing/mebonline/enforce/mortgage/brok_comp/default.asp





Mortgage reps in banks face fare less regulation than mortgage brokers.

The disciplinary posts above speaks for itself. Especially the FSCO link listing ALL those suspended brokers/brokerages.



This is what happens when an industry is not regulated by the government at the provincial level or the federal level.

[sslinn]

As an agent I highly doubt you were subject to a credit check as well as a criminal background check. I think i'd be correct here.
Being unregulated means security issues like this are more the norm than the exception.


Again, you should really do your research. It appears that you have no knowledge of the mortgage industry or it's regulations.

You have to time to Google for other things, I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look foolish. Too late on this one though. I will help you with some research:

http://www.reca.ca/industry/content/licensing-renewals/criminal-record-check.htm

I am not sure, but I think bank reps are less regulated than mortgage brokers. I can't be bothered to research it though.

Do you actually THINK before you hit the submit button. You talk about the regulators suspending people and also refer to mortgage brokers being unregulated. You can't have it both ways.



No formal educational requirements to call yourself a Financial Planner or to get that CFP Certificate? As well no regulation in Canada. How sad is that?

You may want to research that as well.

Every industry has it''s own issues. Banks are no strangers scandal.

http://www.rainbowinvestigations.com/news/story.php?rainbowID=309

http://www.canada.com/business/Alberta+among+hundreds+named+mortgage+fraud+lawsui t/2991210/story.html

http://banknerd.ca/2010/07/15/fraud-victums-get-go-ahead-for-class-action-against-rbc/

As fun as it has been I am not going to entertain your ignorance anymore. In the end we still somewhat disagree with credit scores and I have learned that the education of at least one manager at a bank is lacking. I won't judge the whole banking industry based on my interaction with you though, that is only fair.

Good night!

[mikeymike1]

Touched a raw nerve did I ??? :lol:



Again, you should really do your research. It appears that you have no knowledge of the mortgage industry or it's regulations.
http://www.reca.ca/industry/content/licensing-renewals/criminal-record-check.htm
I am not sure, but I think bank reps are less regulated than mortgage brokers. I can't be bothered to research it though.
Do you actually THINK before you hit the submit button. You talk about the regulators suspending people and also refer to mortgage brokers being unregulated. You can't have it both ways.

You are just an agent at a brokerage firm. You don't hold a Real Estate license so that posted link to Real Estate criminal background check is moot.






Every industry has it''s own issues. Banks are no strangers scandal.
As fun as it has been I am not going to entertain your ignorance anymore. In the end we still somewhat disagree with credit scores and I have learned that the education of at least one manager at a bank is lacking. I won't judge the whole banking industry based on my interaction with you though, that is only fair.
Good night!

Of course theres wrongdoings within banks. But not to the wide spread scale of Mortgage Brokers. Go have a look at that disciplinary list again why don't you.

http://www.mortgagebrokernews.ca/news/gta-brokerages-being-investigated-globe-and-mail/36953
This above link says it all
CEO Alex Haditaghi saying there is "tremendous fraud going on in the broker industry,"




In the end we still somewhat disagree with credit scores and I have learned that the education of at least one manager at a bank is lacking
Thats because you don't know how to score the clients that come to you for services.

You have never ever come into contact with Fair Issac. I'll guarantee you don't even know what a Fair Issac program even looks like. You have no contact with Equifax or TransUnion. You're not a registered Equifax member and you have no education within the financial Canadian banking industry.
You hold no real accredited banking and/or financial credentials or charters yet you state im lacking?!

All you are is an agent at a brokerage firm with a CFP certificate thats not even regulated in Ontario let alone the rest of Canada either.

And you seem to think that a CFP designate thats nothing more than an online self-study, one exam certificate qualifies you to be an expert in consumer credit analysis?

There are no financial education background prerequisite requirements for a CFP certificate. They might as well give them freely to monkeys

The sad story is we see too many brokers more often than not shotgun (as ive mentioned earlier) peoples mortgage applications to half a dozen creditors as well as discovered quite a few of them manipulate the clients application data all for the sake of obtaining financing.


At the end of the day you're only an agent at a brokerage firm. The word consultant would probably be a better fit.

[sslinn]

Touched a raw nerve did I ???

Not at all. I am fine with my education, credentials, licensing and the value I give my clients. What does get under my skin is people who speak about things they know nothing about and won't take the time to educate themselves.


You are just an agent at a brokerage firm. You don't hold a Real Estate license so that posted link to Real Estate criminal background check is moot.

I guess I am going to have to get a refund for my license is this is the case. Let me walk you through this. Read this fully: http://www.reca.ca/industry/content/licensing-renewals/mortgage-new-to-the-industry.htm

Mortgage Associates are licensed by RECA in Alberta. If you want to see if a person is licensed click here: https://www.reca.ca/online/aspx/pubinquiry.aspx Again, read fully so you don't miss the word licensed.

Here is the link for your province. Pretty much the same stuff: http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/regulate/mortgagebrokers/mbconsinfo.asp


Of course theres wrongdoings within banks. But not to the wide spread scale of Mortgage Brokers. Go have a look at that disciplinary list again why don't you.

I have no issues conceding a few bad apples may break the rules and have action taken against them. It is easier to do if you are a bank employee though:

http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=829d4fcb-3e6b-468d-baa9-9dfd8da89d68

Because bank employees are not regulated banks have to take civil action or contact a law enforcement agency for fraud charges.

Banks mortgage specialists don't require any education or licensing. Here is a small portion of a Scotia Bank job posting:

QUALIFICATIONS:

You have extensive sales and marketing experience.
You are a proven business developer in a mobile work environment.
You possess excellent mortgage underwriting and relationship-building skills, and are adept at negotiating.

No education requirement. No licensing requirement. You can look at the whole job posting here: http://www.workopolis.com/EN/job/11739064

Here is another section from this page: http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/gleaner/article/535577

Carrier said RBC doesn't require university or college degrees for the position, but she said it's an asset.

"There are no specific industry accreditations required for the mortgage specialist role. We consider experience in any sales roles an asset to demonstrate the candidate has the necessary aptitudes for this role. They do not need to have banking experience," Carrier said.

Can you tell me what education or licensing is required to work for a bank. If you can provide documentation for that I would appreciate. I will take the time to read it and educate myself to the bank's standards.


Thats because you don't know how to score the clients that come to you for services.

My approval and closing ratios show different.


You have never ever come into contact with Fair Issac. I'll guarantee you don't even know what a Fair Issac program even looks like. You have no contact with Equifax or TransUnion. You're not a registered Equifax member and you have no education within the financial Canadian banking industry.
You hold no real accredited banking and/or financial credentials or charters yet you state im lacking?!

You can't read a simply webpage to educate yourself. You tell me if that is lacking? I have the contact with Equifax that I need to run my business and I pay an Equifax fee yearly. You are correct, unlike yourself I don't work for a bank. I have not been privy to their unregulated in house training.


And you seem to think that a CFP designate thats nothing more than an online self-study, one exam certificate qualifies you to be an expert in consumer credit analysis?

If you can find the education requirement online, pass the exam and post your letter stating you have passed you can comment on the validity of the CFP requirements and exam. Let me know how that goes for you. You have not commented on your education or credentials. Care to enlighten me?


The sad story is we see too many brokers more often than not shotgun (as ive mentioned earlier) peoples mortgage applications to half a dozen creditors as well as discovered quite a few of them manipulate the clients application data all for the sake of obtaining financing.


You may be confusing mortgage brokers with car dealerships. Any brokers using your approach will not be around for long. Do you have an example of such manipulation? My thoughts are this is rare.


At the end of the day you're only an agent at a brokerage firm. The word consultant would probably be a better fit.

At the end of the day I am an educated, licensed and regulated mortgage associate which may or may not be more than can be said for you. All of which is really irrelevant to my main point.

A person's credit score is an important factor for overall financial health. Suggesting different is irresponsible.

[sslinn]

Of course theres wrongdoings within banks. But not to the wide spread scale of Mortgage Brokers. Go have a look at that disciplinary list again why don't you.

I guess it depends on how hard that you look. Here is some information for you, notice that they don't always indicate which bank? Mortgage brokers and their regulators are more transparent.

http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2005/323_20051222_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2005/321_20051207_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2005/312_20050830_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/350_20060609_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2005/299_050331_03_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2005/289_050203_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/360_20061114_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/356_20061023_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/344_20060717_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/335_20060627_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/332_20060412_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/327_20060202_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/381_20070315_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/380_20070329_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/380_20070329_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/378_20070323_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/374_20070323_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2008/395_20080925_e.cfm

I didn't fully read all of them, but this one is the most disturbing: http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2008/395_20080925_e.cfm Over 400,000 people had their personal information comprised.

Skimming over these investigations was educational. I am proud to day that I protect my client's information better than the banks do theirs. Which of these were BMO? Would you even know? The scary thing is these are just the complaints that were brought forward. The tip of the iceberg. Hopefully the financial industry as a whole is working towards better privacy and compliance.

[partytime2009]

\

Lastly, sure building a credit score takes time. But if his score continues to rise up 50-70 points within 5 years but his income is stagnant (within those same 5 years)... it doesnt mean he should be approved for a larger loan in the 5th year as opposed to the 1st year. (because his credit score is higher)
His approved loan/mortgage amount should be predicated on income and income alone. Not score

I strongly disagree with that comment. When you are lending to someone you have to consider two factors:

1. Ability to pay - Income, TDSR, GDSR, etc.
2. Willingness to pay - Credit History/Credit score. I agree that the past is not a perfect predictor of the future, but it is the best predictor of a person's willingness to pay (and pay on time).


Saying that we should only look at ability to pay and not willingness to pay is fraught with risk.