Pet Peeve - Insurers using credit scores to price products

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Following is a local newspaper piece about the issue. Notice that the practice has been banned in 4 states. If you happen to be from NC, or just a P&N type, please ignore the politician quoted, cause that wasn't my point in posting this. I just think this is a violation of the spirit of all privacy laws in this country, and just an excuse for insurance co's to boost profits.

BTW - For the cynical among you, my credit score was in the mid 700's last time I bothered to check it, so I am probably not being victimized by this.

Insurers' use of credit scores criticized
LISA ZAGAROLI

WASHINGTON --Putting the pedal to the metal has always put people at risk of increased car insurance premiums, but what about making late credit card payments?

Insurers over the past decade have increasingly relied on individuals' credit scores to help determine how much automobile insurance will cost.

It's a practice that has some lawmakers crying foul because of evidence that it disproportionately affects some minority groups.

A Federal Trade Commission report, requested by Congress and made public in July, found that credit scores effectively predict the frequency of claims made to auto insurance companies.

"This is totally unfair, even if there is some statistical relationship," Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., of Charlotte, said following a hearing Tuesday on whether credit-based insurance scores disproportionately affect African Americans and Hispanics.

"That might be equivalent to having your driving history determine whether you get a bank loan, or the interest rate you will pay on the loan," said Watt, chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

He called the hearing to evaluate whether the federal government should prohibit or restrict the use of credit scores in setting insurance premiums.

Watt said after the meeting, which drew a packed committee room, that he might introduce legislation on the issue.

Insurance companies were quick to defend the practice as sound actuarial policy and an excellent indicator of risk.

Insurers typically give more weight to factors such as an individual's driving record, the type of vehicle he owns and the area where the car owner lives, said Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group for insurers.

A report issued by his group suggests that people who are careful money managers tend to also be attentive to how they drive, service their vehicles and maintain their homes.

In North Carolina, a person's credit history can't be used as the sole factor in denying coverage or changing a rate, said Chrissy Pearson, a spokeswoman for the N.C. Department of Insurance. It can be reviewed in conjunction with other factors.

At least four states, California, Hawaii, New Jersey and Massachusetts, have banned the practice of using credit history to set insurance rates.

Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler said anyone with a teenage driver in his household knows about risks being considered in his insurance premiums.

"But it is our responsibility as regulators to ensure that credit scoring does not unfairly discriminate and harm protected classes of people," he said in explaining the tight restrictions his state uses.

Former Illinois Insurance Commissioner Nathaniel Shapo told lawmakers that the practice is beneficial to consumers because good drivers are less likely to have to underwrite the cost of bad drivers.

Watt noted that the practice of using race to set life insurance rates has already been banned, despite plentiful data showing that some minorities live shorter lives.

He said there's no correlation between race and someone's driving record, but there is a known link between race and credit score.

The use of credit scores is likely to lead to increased premiums for 64 percent of African Americans, 53 percent of Hispanics, 38 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 34 percent of Asians, the FTC said.

But the scores have a "relatively small" chance of being a direct substitute or "proxy" for race or ethnicity, factors which can't be used to determine premiums. FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch said the data don't explain the association between scores and risk.

N.C. Credit Score Use

The N.C. Department of Insurance has received 12 complaints this year about the use of credit scores for auto and housing insurance, said spokeswoman Kristin Milam. There have been 44 complaints about the use since 2004.

S.C. car insurance companies are prohibited from using credit scores as the sole basis in determining auto rates under a law that took effect in 2003. State consumer officials said they received many calls about credit scores and insurance rates three or four years ago, but haven't heard of any issues during the past eight to 12 months, said Ann Roberson, spokeswoman for the S.C. Department of Insurance.

Jayne Cannon, public relations manager with AAA Carolinas, said the company receives calls from customers wanting to know how insurance rates are determined. The company tells applicants that it will use their credit score as a factor in determining rates

"History has shown that people who have spotty credit are more likely to file claims, and are more likely to be not as careful with their automobile and their driving records as people who have pristine records," Cannon said.
 

Gibson486

Lifer
Aug 9, 2000
18,378
2
0
you use whatever you can to statistically tell what people will do what. I live in MA, so i couldn't care less. that said, MA rates are still higher than normal.
 

dfuze

Lifer
Feb 15, 2006
11,953
0
71
Originally posted by: Gibson486
you use whatever you can to statistically tell what people will do what.

Very well said. I'm sure anyone can find some study to back up any point of view on anything.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: dph1077
Originally posted by: Gibson486
you use whatever you can to statistically tell what people will do what.

Very well said. I'm sure anyone can find some study to back up any point of view on anything.

Nice.

To me, it is all about the erosion of personal privacy in America, and the crackdown on personal autonomy. First, it was successfully lobbied that it was okay for profit-oriented companies to collect personal data about private citizens. Then it was also okay to package and sell that data against the person's wishes. Now, that data is a brothel willing to take any paying customer. As a result, the personal independence and autonomy of individuals has been compromised, especially since the lobbies have also made certain forms of insurance and credit checks legally mandatory.

I'm not absolutely opposed to the infringements on personal privacy, but this is an area where the floodgates have been opened and now everyone with a potential pecuniary incentive is exploiting it to profit.

And on an unrelated note, I have a real problem with the insurance/actuary position that correlation = causation. There is a direct, unabashed statement to that effect in the story. So now, logical fallacies are an accepted basis for violation of the personal freedoms that comprise what being a free man is (in this country at least).
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
321
126
My credit completely sucks, and i've never filed a claim in 13 years of driving.
 

Chryso

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,039
13
81
If people are not careful with something as important as their credit would it not make sense that they would also be not careful in other areas, such as driving?
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Originally posted by: Chryso
If people are not careful with something as important as their credit would it not make sense that they would also be not careful in other areas, such as driving?

No it doesn't make sense. See the post above you.
 

DaWhim

Lifer
Feb 3, 2003
12,985
1
81
We had talked about this issue in my consumer law class. your credit score is completely irrelevant to your driving skills.
 

Chryso

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,039
13
81
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: Chryso
If people are not careful with something as important as their credit would it not make sense that they would also be not careful in other areas, such as driving?

No it doesn't make sense. See the post above you.

One example does not make a case.


Originally posted by: DaWhim
We had talked about this issue in my consumer law class. your credit score is completely irrelevant to your driving skills.


Do you have proof that there is no correlation between the two?
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
It's great that California is on the list who don't use credit scores. Sadly, insurance rates in California, in general, suck.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
And on an unrelated note, I have a real problem with the insurance/actuary position that correlation = causation. There is a direct, unabashed statement to that effect in the story. So now, logical fallacies are an accepted basis for violation of the personal freedoms that comprise what being a free man is (in this country at least).

Firstly, what a reporter put in his story is not an authoritative statement of what the insurance companies think.

Secondly, insurance companies are not saying that correlation is causation. What they are saying is that, statistically, the overall group of people with low credit ratings will incur more cost to the insurance company. They are not making specific claims about any single individual within that group. However, it is unfair to the lower risk groups to assess the cost of the higher-risk groups on everyone, so the high-risk group is given a blanket increase in premiums.

ZV
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: pyonir
My credit completely sucks, and i've never filed a claim in 13 years of driving.

Conversely, my credit is very good, but my driving record is ... meh at best.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Firstly, what a reporter put in his story is not an authoritative statement of what the insurance companies think.

No, but what the insurance companies say they think is a pretty good example of what they think:

The company tells applicants that it will use their credit score as a factor in determining rates...

... "History has shown that people who have spotty credit are more likely to file claims, and are more likely to be not as careful with their automobile and their driving records as people who have pristine records," Cannon said.

It really is stated that directly.

Secondly, insurance companies are not saying that correlation is causation. What they are saying is that, statistically, the overall group of people with low credit ratings will incur more cost to the insurance company. They are not making specific claims about any single individual within that group. However, it is unfair to the lower risk groups to assess the cost of the higher-risk groups on everyone, so the high-risk group is given a blanket increase in premiums.

ZV

But that's not my point. The assumption in what you just said is that it is okay to put profitability ahead of personal privacy rights. It's mind boggling how this is just assumed to be okay nowadays. The lobbyists and PR/marketing folks have completely sold the public. Job well done!

Meanwhile, as stated several times, there is absolutely no correlation between the two. As Watt says, you might as well price mortgages off of driving records.
 

Chryso

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,039
13
81
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: pyonir
My credit completely sucks, and i've never filed a claim in 13 years of driving.

Conversely, my credit is very good, but my driving record is ... meh at best.

Too much rubber necking.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: Chryso
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: pyonir
My credit completely sucks, and i've never filed a claim in 13 years of driving.

Conversely, my credit is very good, but my driving record is ... meh at best.

Too much rubber necking.

Girls in very little clothing... FTL?
 

Chryso

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,039
13
81
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Firstly, what a reporter put in his story is not an authoritative statement of what the insurance companies think.

No, but what the insurance companies say they think is a pretty good example of what they think:

The company tells applicants that it will use their credit score as a factor in determining rates...

... "History has shown that people who have spotty credit are more likely to file claims, and are more likely to be not as careful with their automobile and their driving records as people who have pristine records," Cannon said.

It really is stated that directly.

Secondly, insurance companies are not saying that correlation is causation. What they are saying is that, statistically, the overall group of people with low credit ratings will incur more cost to the insurance company. They are not making specific claims about any single individual within that group. However, it is unfair to the lower risk groups to assess the cost of the higher-risk groups on everyone, so the high-risk group is given a blanket increase in premiums.

ZV

But that's not my point. The assumption in what you just said is that it is okay to put profitability ahead of personal privacy rights. It's mind boggling how this is just assumed to be okay nowadays. The lobbyists and PR/marketing folks have completely sold the public. Job well done!

Meanwhile, as stated several times, there is absolutely no correlation between the two. As Watt says, you might as well price mortgages off of driving records.

It isn't putting profitability ahead of anything. They are going to make the same amount of money regardless of where it comes from. Instead of blanketing everyone with higher rates they are charging the people who tend to cost them more money a higher premium than those who tend to cost them less money. How does this affect profitability at all? Their profitability would be exactly the same if they insured 5 people for $100 each as if they insured 2 people for $115 and 3 others for $90 each. Either way they get $500.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: Chryso
It isn't putting profitability ahead of anything. They are going to make the same amount of money regardless of where it comes from.

Read this, slowly, perhaps aloud, several times. Think about it a while. Then get back to me.

 

Chryso

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,039
13
81
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Chryso
It isn't putting profitability ahead of anything. They are going to make the same amount of money regardless of where it comes from.

Read this, slowly, perhaps aloud, several times. Think about it a while. Then get back to me.

I will type this slowly for you.
If one group statistically costs more money to insure then that group should pay a larger premium.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: Chryso
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Chryso
It isn't putting profitability ahead of anything. They are going to make the same amount of money regardless of where it comes from.

Read this, slowly, perhaps aloud, several times. Think about it a while. Then get back to me.

I will type this slowly for you.
If one group statistically costs more money to insure then that group should pay a larger premium.

Yes, you've already said that violating personal privacy is okay as long as its for profit. Welcome to the NWO
 

Chryso

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,039
13
81
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Chryso
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Chryso
It isn't putting profitability ahead of anything. They are going to make the same amount of money regardless of where it comes from.

Read this, slowly, perhaps aloud, several times. Think about it a while. Then get back to me.

I will type this slowly for you.
If one group statistically costs more money to insure then that group should pay a larger premium.

Yes, you've already said that violating personal privacy is okay as long as its for profit. Welcome to the NWO

So why aren't you complaining that teenage boys pay more for car insurance than teenage girls?
 

zoiks

Lifer
Jan 13, 2000
11,787
3
81
Originally posted by: Chryso
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: Chryso
If people are not careful with something as important as their credit would it not make sense that they would also be not careful in other areas, such as driving?

No it doesn't make sense. See the post above you.

One example does not make a case.


Originally posted by: DaWhim
We had talked about this issue in my consumer law class. your credit score is completely irrelevant to your driving skills.


Do you have proof that there is no correlation between the two?

My credit score is near the 800 range and i have to say that I usually never drive the speed limit. All the tickets I've gotten have been for speeding.
 

SludgeFactory

Platinum Member
Sep 14, 2001
2,969
2
81
I don't like insurance companies at all, but I don't see causation implied in the statement. They don't care about causation, they're just noting a correlation. Causation would be something like "having poor credit causes drivers to get in more accidents and make more claims." I wouldn't agree with that statement myself, there are a lot of co-factors involved, things like people with poor credit might be younger & less experienced drivers, maybe they're bigger risk-takers, maybe they live in more economically depressed areas with more car theft, whatever. Insurance already collects data to try to identify most of that, but any additional data just adds to the profile to nail down how profitable you're going to tend to be for them.

The interesting thing, what the article brings up, is that the racial aspect is what makes this most controversial, and what will probably get the use of credit scores banned in a lot more places. Of course, anything hinting at using racial data is radioactive in this country, but we're willing to accept insurance discrimination based on age and gender.

To me it seems more fair to use my credit score than things I can't control like age or gender. At least I had some input in establishing my credit score, reflected in my past choices and behaviors. Anyone who was ever a safe male driver under 25 knows how unfair it feels to get lumped in with and share the financial burden that our Darwin-Award-winning, death-and-destruction-causing peers were responsible for.

The ultimate "fair" solution would be Big Brother tracking each vehicle electronically with telemetry and cameras, recording where you go, where you park, how fast you drive, how many traffic laws you break, the level of congestion you drive in and how you handle it, near misses, etc., to see just exactly how much of a risk you are behind the wheel as an individual. Anyone want to sign up for that? :p
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Insurance is all statistics anyway. If one group cost more, then they should pay more. So, more responsible people can get a competitively priced product. Insurance happy because they can lower their costs and gain customers without profit being driven down.

This isn't about privacy, this is about sound business decisions. I'm curious about the average insurance costs of the states where it is prohibited. Radar says they are more expensive.
 

compnovice

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2005
3,192
0
0
Originally posted by: Chryso
If people are not careful with something as important as their credit would it not make sense that they would also be not careful in other areas, such as driving?

By your logic 90 year old grandma's with 800+ credit score should be perfect drivers :p
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Gibson486
you use whatever you can to statistically tell what people will do what. I live in MA, so i couldn't care less. that said, MA rates are still higher than normal.

That's what I'm thinking... I mean, if anyone knows what indicates a person's risk of an accident, it's actuaries.