When I posted a blog entry on Sept. 19 about NU Associate Editor Mark Ruquet's column in the Sept. 18 print edition of National Underwriter, citing on a personal level the drawbacks of allowing insurers to use credit scoring to price coverage, it created quite a stir, drawing a wide range of comments. After carefully considering how readers responded, he's weighing in with some counterpoints of his own. Read on.

Mark Ruquet, NU Associate Editor:

It is great to see that people read my column either here on this blog or in NU, and are eager to respond. Unfortunately, the comments filed here seem to underscore what I wrote.

To the defenders of credit scoring–you missed my point. As an analysis of risk, it may well be an excellent tool in the actuarial process to help measure risk. It knows no race, color or creed and only indicates how responsible an individual is. Theoretically, a person who is responsible with their wallet should be responsible behind the wheel.

Yes, credit scores are popularly used by the business community, and its popularity is growing. But, popularity does not always equate to wisdom, especially for the business community.

Anybody remember junk bonds? A popular investment tool that ended up putting a few people in prison and untold losses among investors.

For those opposed to the use of credit scores–insurers dont use them as the sole metric for determining risk. There are a number of factors that go into the mix. It is actuarial science. Anyone in this business who relies on one piece of information to determine risk is a fool, and will one day join the cavalcade of insolvency.

However, all of this is irrelevant to my main complaint.

The problem with credit scores is they are not reliable. One individual I spoke to said there is a 10 percent error rate in credit reports. Another study said the error rate is 79 percent, 25 percent of which are serious enough to result in the denial of credit.

Are the numbers right? We can spend all day debating that point among those with narrow political agendas. But there is no denying errors are made. There are credible questions about the reliability of the information that goes into creating the scores. Whether it is 10 percent or 79 percent, you are looking at millions of people. Those are real numbers.

Those supporting credit scores need to take off their blinders and insist of the reporting agencies that the information they provide be accurate. Credit scoring may be useful, and harmless from an actuarial perspective, but if the numbers are bad going in, might not the results be equally poor coming out?

Special Reports /

Ruquet's Counterpoints In Credit Scoring Debate

Related Stories

Recommended For You