如果你去問消費者權益倡導者,他們會告訴你,信貸行業什么也不干。美國三大征信機構——易速傳真(Equifax)、環聯(TransUnion)、益博睿(Experian)——就像黑箱,它們收集并出售消費者的有關數據,根據我們的消費行為給我們評級,卻不讓我們知道是怎么算的,同時還固化了種族間懸殊差距。
這就是為什么消費者權益倡導者要呼吁成立公立信用報告機構,也是美國總統喬?拜登接受了左傾智庫Demos僅關此事之提案的原因。
這份提案中建議在美國消費者金融保護局(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)中成立公營的信用報告機構,在七年之內最終取代美國現在由營利性機構把持的信用體系。根據艾米?特勞伯的提案,該機構將會以消費者需求而非收益為出發點。
“如今,僅由三大私營公司發布的信用報告問題多多:它們經常出錯,因為生成信用分數的數據來源問題而遺漏很多‘無形信用’,還加劇了種族不平等的現象。”拜登的投資社區住房計劃中如此寫道。
信用分數幾乎影響到美國人日常消費的方方面面。不如人意的信用分數會讓人更難申請到車貸或房貸、開公司,甚至是找到工作。并且,信用可靠程度的決定方式很大程度上是在延續種族主義的體制與政策,它們早已荼毒了黑人、拉丁裔人和其他少數族群。“我覺得這是一個很應時的想法。”特勞伯說;她對拜登采納她的提案表示樂觀,一部分也是因為這個提案在2019年獲得了伯尼?桑德斯的支持。
這將是一個很大的鼓舞,不過拜登一直夸下海口要解決種族差異懸殊和經濟公平的問題,這個計劃也只是藍圖的一部分。
信用分數和發布它們的公司再次制造了種族間的財富差距,鞏固了導致差距的區別性政策。根據Demos的研究,在現有的體系中,信用評分和其他放貸的算法把很大比例的黑人和拉丁裔標記為風險更高的借款人。這些群體也更可能擁有“薄檔”,或者叫為數不多的信用記錄,許多放款人也會因此認為他們的違約風險高。
Demos在提案中說到,公營的信用登記處將開發出一套透明的算法,著眼于平等,為少數族群以合理的利率申請到貸款掃除障礙。而對于障礙之一醫療債務,Demos在報告中提出要將其從信用記錄中移除。因為當人們背上醫療債務的時候,做出金錢上的決定通常不會理性地考慮到償還能力;經常都是需要一大筆錢救急,至于數額是多少,在治療告一段落前就連借款人也不清楚。而且在新冠疫情催生歷史高失業率的背景下,如果一個國家的醫保和就業在很大程度上掛鉤,醫療債務自然會增長。這個不像車貸,借款人有充足的時間好好考慮要不要貸款。在這項提議成立公營信用報告機構的提案中,車貸將成為信用分數與信用可靠程度的考慮因素,但醫療債務不會包含在內。
另一項被剔除出影響消費者信用可靠程度的數據,則是無力償還掠奪性貸款的記錄。報告稱,“無力償還惡貸(比如2008年金融危機前放款機構在有色人種群體中極力推銷的那些有詐的按揭貸款)并不意味著該借款人在公平的條件下也會如此處理自己的信貸。”
拜登的公營信用機構也會把一些新的數據考慮在內,比如現金流或者是交房租和水電費的記錄——但前提是消費者對此要知情同意。金融科技行業已經采用了這種模式,向那些被傳統銀行認為失格的客戶發放貸款。這也是信用局可以采納的一個備選項,但還沒有到必須的地步。
“對于讓信用報告生態中的數據更準確、可靠,以便未有資格的客戶能夠申請到貸款的這類政策,新政府是支持的。”美國消費者數據行業協會(Consumer Data Industry Association)的會長兼總裁弗朗西斯?克雷頓如此表示,該集團支持包含三大征信機構在內的消費者信用報告公司。“消費者數據行業協會支持這樣的努力,我們已經在并將繼續促進政策創新,以達到那些目標。”
金融科技公司One,同時也針對中等收入家庭提供銀行業務,其首席執行官布萊恩?漢密爾頓對成為話題熱點的公營信用報告機構的“宗旨”是相信的,但他認為私營行業比政府更適合解決提案中說到的問題。他表示,聯邦政府應該強制要求提供增加額外信用記錄來源的選項,并且對確定信用可靠程度的算法和收集到的消費者數據加強監督。但鑒于傳統銀行、征信機構和金融科技公司已經在做這項工作,從頭開始建立自己的征信機構,在漢密爾頓看來,并不是利用政府時間的最優解。
“我真的很贊成私營行業在政府的支持下按照他們自己的目標解決問題。他們在所做事情的宗旨上有正確的目標,對此我100%支持。”他說。“要推動現有的信用機構利用它們的非傳統數據評分,讓它們使用個人數據的用途以及分數的計算方式公開。然后再扶持這個行業。”
盡管漢密爾頓并不認為成立公營信用報告機構是解決經濟不公的正確途徑,但他認為聯邦政府還是可以發揮很大作用。他說,除了扶持行業和加強監督外,拜登還應該在美國的金融教育上“三管齊下”,讓消費者了解自己的選擇,并能夠比前幾代人更好地運作信用體系。
與漢密爾頓不同的是,米爾茲溫斯基表示,包括他自己在內的消費者權益倡導者認為,建立公營信用機構是“一個好主意”。
“這是一個已經崩潰的市場。”他說。“和信用機構打交道就像在《土撥鼠之日》(Groundhog Day)里一樣,因為它們繼續做著一開始就在做的事情,但它們一開始就犯了很多錯誤,固化了種族間的財富差距,并且拒絕把消費者當作客戶,因為事實上它們的客戶是企業。”
米爾茲溫斯基認為,現在該將管理權交給公共部門。營利性信貸機構對投資者及其企業客戶負責,但成立美國消費者金融保護局是為了把消費者放在第一位。
不過,當公營機構接手時,易速傳真和益博睿會怎么樣呢?這兩家公司還有強勁的國際信貸業務,同時它們還在美國收集和銷售數據,這項業務不會因為交接而受到阻礙。
“我不覺得那些信用機構會有什么損失。”米爾茲溫斯基說。“它們仍然可以收集信息。而且仍然能夠開展所有與信用報告體系無關的數據買賣活動和直銷項目。所以,它們不會就此消失”
易速傳真讓《財富》雜志去找美國消費者數據行業協會,而益博睿和環聯則沒有回應眾多的評論請求。
根據米爾茲溫斯基和特勞伯的說法,如果真的要建立Demos提出的公營信用報告機構,那么從盈利至上轉變為一個公眾選項將需要七年時間,因此如有必要,這些機構會有足夠的時間來調整商業模式。
但拜登是否能夠做些什么仍然是未知數。佐治亞州的參議院第二輪選舉將決定共和黨是否在米奇?麥康奈爾的領導下守住參議院。如果麥康奈爾所在的黨派從佐治亞州勝出,拜登建立公營信用機構的機會就變得渺茫,但也不致完全消失。如果民主黨控制了參議院,進而控制國會和白宮,那么在拜登的任期內,建立公營信用機構的工作就很有可能早早啟動。
該機構如何建立和運作尚有待商榷。在2020年的民主黨大會上,民主黨在其政綱中采納了設立公共登記處的想法,但建議將它作為消費者的一種選擇,而不是像Demos提案中那樣,要最終取代營利性信貸行業。拜登的過渡團隊沒有回應就他對此的首選方法發表評論的請求,但他的過渡網站上提供了Demos提案的鏈接。
共和黨人和民主黨人都大多認為,目前的制度不夠透明,許多人還認為它使不平等現象長期存在。如果國會仍然存在分歧,為建立公營信用報告機構開綠燈還是可能得到兩黨的支持,但消費者權益倡導者和立法者的斗爭是免不了的。(財富中文網)
譯者:李洙揚
如果你去問消費者權益倡導者,他們會告訴你,信貸行業什么也不干。美國三大征信機構——易速傳真(Equifax)、環聯(TransUnion)、益博睿(Experian)——就像黑箱,它們收集并出售消費者的有關數據,根據我們的消費行為給我們評級,卻不讓我們知道是怎么算的,同時還固化了種族間懸殊差距。
這就是為什么消費者權益倡導者要呼吁成立公立信用報告機構,也是美國總統喬?拜登接受了左傾智庫Demos僅關此事之提案的原因。
這份提案中建議在美國消費者金融保護局(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)中成立公營的信用報告機構,在七年之內最終取代美國現在由營利性機構把持的信用體系。根據艾米?特勞伯的提案,該機構將會以消費者需求而非收益為出發點。
“如今,僅由三大私營公司發布的信用報告問題多多:它們經常出錯,因為生成信用分數的數據來源問題而遺漏很多‘無形信用’,還加劇了種族不平等的現象。”拜登的投資社區住房計劃中如此寫道。
信用分數幾乎影響到美國人日常消費的方方面面。不如人意的信用分數會讓人更難申請到車貸或房貸、開公司,甚至是找到工作。并且,信用可靠程度的決定方式很大程度上是在延續種族主義的體制與政策,它們早已荼毒了黑人、拉丁裔人和其他少數族群。“我覺得這是一個很應時的想法。”特勞伯說;她對拜登采納她的提案表示樂觀,一部分也是因為這個提案在2019年獲得了伯尼?桑德斯的支持。
這將是一個很大的鼓舞,不過拜登一直夸下海口要解決種族差異懸殊和經濟公平的問題,這個計劃也只是藍圖的一部分。
信用分數和發布它們的公司再次制造了種族間的財富差距,鞏固了導致差距的區別性政策。根據Demos的研究,在現有的體系中,信用評分和其他放貸的算法把很大比例的黑人和拉丁裔標記為風險更高的借款人。這些群體也更可能擁有“薄檔”,或者叫為數不多的信用記錄,許多放款人也會因此認為他們的違約風險高。
Demos在提案中說到,公營的信用登記處將開發出一套透明的算法,著眼于平等,為少數族群以合理的利率申請到貸款掃除障礙。而對于障礙之一醫療債務,Demos在報告中提出要將其從信用記錄中移除。因為當人們背上醫療債務的時候,做出金錢上的決定通常不會理性地考慮到償還能力;經常都是需要一大筆錢救急,至于數額是多少,在治療告一段落前就連借款人也不清楚。而且在新冠疫情催生歷史高失業率的背景下,如果一個國家的醫保和就業在很大程度上掛鉤,醫療債務自然會增長。這個不像車貸,借款人有充足的時間好好考慮要不要貸款。在這項提議成立公營信用報告機構的提案中,車貸將成為信用分數與信用可靠程度的考慮因素,但醫療債務不會包含在內。
另一項被剔除出影響消費者信用可靠程度的數據,則是無力償還掠奪性貸款的記錄。報告稱,“無力償還惡貸(比如2008年金融危機前放款機構在有色人種群體中極力推銷的那些有詐的按揭貸款)并不意味著該借款人在公平的條件下也會如此處理自己的信貸。”
拜登的公營信用機構也會把一些新的數據考慮在內,比如現金流或者是交房租和水電費的記錄——但前提是消費者對此要知情同意。金融科技行業已經采用了這種模式,向那些被傳統銀行認為失格的客戶發放貸款。這也是信用局可以采納的一個備選項,但還沒有到必須的地步。
“對于讓信用報告生態中的數據更準確、可靠,以便未有資格的客戶能夠申請到貸款的這類政策,新政府是支持的。”美國消費者數據行業協會(Consumer Data Industry Association)的會長兼總裁弗朗西斯?克雷頓如此表示,該集團支持包含三大征信機構在內的消費者信用報告公司。“消費者數據行業協會支持這樣的努力,我們已經在并將繼續促進政策創新,以達到那些目標。”
金融科技公司One,同時也針對中等收入家庭提供銀行業務,其首席執行官布萊恩?漢密爾頓對成為話題熱點的公營信用報告機構的“宗旨”是相信的,但他認為私營行業比政府更適合解決提案中說到的問題。他表示,聯邦政府應該強制要求提供增加額外信用記錄來源的選項,并且對確定信用可靠程度的算法和收集到的消費者數據加強監督。但鑒于傳統銀行、征信機構和金融科技公司已經在做這項工作,從頭開始建立自己的征信機構,在漢密爾頓看來,并不是利用政府時間的最優解。
“我真的很贊成私營行業在政府的支持下按照他們自己的目標解決問題。他們在所做事情的宗旨上有正確的目標,對此我100%支持。”他說。“要推動現有的信用機構利用它們的非傳統數據評分,讓它們使用個人數據的用途以及分數的計算方式公開。然后再扶持這個行業。”
盡管漢密爾頓并不認為成立公營信用報告機構是解決經濟不公的正確途徑,但他認為聯邦政府還是可以發揮很大作用。他說,除了扶持行業和加強監督外,拜登還應該在美國的金融教育上“三管齊下”,讓消費者了解自己的選擇,并能夠比前幾代人更好地運作信用體系。
與漢密爾頓不同的是,米爾茲溫斯基表示,包括他自己在內的消費者權益倡導者認為,建立公營信用機構是“一個好主意”。
“這是一個已經崩潰的市場。”他說。“和信用機構打交道就像在《土撥鼠之日》(Groundhog Day)里一樣,因為它們繼續做著一開始就在做的事情,但它們一開始就犯了很多錯誤,固化了種族間的財富差距,并且拒絕把消費者當作客戶,因為事實上它們的客戶是企業。”
米爾茲溫斯基認為,現在該將管理權交給公共部門。營利性信貸機構對投資者及其企業客戶負責,但成立美國消費者金融保護局是為了把消費者放在第一位。
不過,當公營機構接手時,易速傳真和益博睿會怎么樣呢?這兩家公司還有強勁的國際信貸業務,同時它們還在美國收集和銷售數據,這項業務不會因為交接而受到阻礙。
“我不覺得那些信用機構會有什么損失。”米爾茲溫斯基說。“它們仍然可以收集信息。而且仍然能夠開展所有與信用報告體系無關的數據買賣活動和直銷項目。所以,它們不會就此消失”
易速傳真讓《財富》雜志去找美國消費者數據行業協會,而益博睿和環聯則沒有回應眾多的評論請求。
根據米爾茲溫斯基和特勞伯的說法,如果真的要建立Demos提出的公營信用報告機構,那么從盈利至上轉變為一個公眾選項將需要七年時間,因此如有必要,這些機構會有足夠的時間來調整商業模式。
但拜登是否能夠做些什么仍然是未知數。佐治亞州的參議院第二輪選舉將決定共和黨是否在米奇?麥康奈爾的領導下守住參議院。如果麥康奈爾所在的黨派從佐治亞州勝出,拜登建立公營信用機構的機會就變得渺茫,但也不致完全消失。如果民主黨控制了參議院,進而控制國會和白宮,那么在拜登的任期內,建立公營信用機構的工作就很有可能早早啟動。
該機構如何建立和運作尚有待商榷。在2020年的民主黨大會上,民主黨在其政綱中采納了設立公共登記處的想法,但建議將它作為消費者的一種選擇,而不是像Demos提案中那樣,要最終取代營利性信貸行業。拜登的過渡團隊沒有回應就他對此的首選方法發表評論的請求,但他的過渡網站上提供了Demos提案的鏈接。
共和黨人和民主黨人都大多認為,目前的制度不夠透明,許多人還認為它使不平等現象長期存在。如果國會仍然存在分歧,為建立公營信用報告機構開綠燈還是可能得到兩黨的支持,但消費者權益倡導者和立法者的斗爭是免不了的。(財富中文網)
譯者:李洙揚
The credit industry isn’t working if you ask consumer advocates. The Big Three credit agencies—Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian—are black boxes, gathering and selling consumer data, grading us on our financial behavior without letting us in on how they do it, and perpetuating damaging racial disparities while they’re at it.
That’s why consumer advocates are calling for a public credit reporting agency, and why President-elect Joe Biden has adopted a proposal for just that from left-leaning think tank Demos.
The proposal suggests building a publicly run credit reporting agency within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would eventually, over the course of seven years, replace the current for-profit credit system in America. The agency would be steered by consumer need rather than the bottom line, according to proposal author Amy Traub.
“Today, credit reports, which are issued by just three large private companies, are rife with problems: They often contain errors, they leave many ‘credit invisible’ due to the sources used to generate a credit score, and they contribute to racial disparities,” Biden’s plan for investing in communities through housing reads.
Credit scores impact nearly every corner of an American’s financial life. A less-than-ideal credit score can make it much harder to get a loan for a house or car, start a business, or even get a job. And much of how creditworthiness is determined perpetuates the racist systems and policies that have plagued Black, Latinx, and other minority communities. “I think it’s an idea that’s time has come,” Traub said, optimistic about Biden’s adoption of the proposal, spurred in part by Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of it in 2019.
It would be a big lift, but Biden ran on big promises to address racial disparities and economic justice, and this plan would be a piece of that puzzle.
Credit scores and the companies that issue them reproduce the racial wealth gap and bolster the discriminatory policies that create it. In the current system, credit scoring and other lending algorithms disproportionately label Black and Latinx people as riskier borrowers, according to Demos. Those groups are also more likely to have a “thin file,” or short credit history, which allows for many lenders to view them as risky as well.
A public credit registry would develop a transparent algorithm with an eye toward equality and removing obstacles that keep minorities from receiving loans at reasonable rates, according to the Demos proposal. One such obstacle is medical debt, which the Demos paper proposes should be left out of credit history. When people incur medical debt, it is not often a rational financial decision made with the ability to repay in mind; it’s usually taken on in an emergency for a sum unknown to the borrower until after the care has been given. And in the midst of a pandemic that has forced record-high unemployment levels, in a country that largely ties health insurance and employment together, medical debt is on the rise. This is unlike, say, a car loan, which allows borrowers the time to think rationally about taking it on. At the proposed public credit reporting agency, the car loan would factor into score and creditworthiness, but medical debt would not.
Another piece of data that would no longer be factored into questions of consumer creditworthiness is inability to repay predatory loans. The paper asserts that “a consumer’s inability to repay an abusive loan (such as the shoddy mortgages that lenders aggressively marketed in communities of color during the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis) reveals little about how the same borrower would handle credit provided on fair terms.”
Biden’s public credit agency would take some new data into account, too, such as cash flow or history of rent and utility payments—but only if consumers affirmatively opted in. This is a model that is already being used in fintech to issue loans to those deemed unworthy by traditional banks. It is also an option at credit bureaus, but that offering is not mandated.
“The incoming administration is supportive of policies that would bring more accurate and reliable data into the credit reporting ecosystem to help improve access to credit for underserved consumers,” said Francis Creighton, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, the trade group for consumer reporting companies including the major credit bureaus. “CDIA supports these efforts, and we have and will continue to advocate for policy innovations to achieve these goals.”
Brian Hamilton, CEO of One, a fintech and banking services company aimed at middle-income households, said he believes in the “spirit” of the public credit reporting agency in question, but he thinks that private industry is better suited to solve the problems that the proposal outlines than the government is. The federal government, he said, should make offering the option to add additional sources of credit history mandatory and increase oversight of the algorithms used to determine creditworthiness and the data collected on consumers. But building its own credit agency from the ground up when traditional banks, credit agencies, and fintech companies are already doing that work is not the best use of the government’s time in Hamilton’s eyes.
“I’m really in favor of private industry solving the problem with the support of the administration and their goals. They have the right goals in the spirit of what they’re trying to do, which I’m 100% for,” he said. “Push the existing credit bureaus to leverage their nontraditional data in their scores and be transparent about what they are doing with people’s data and how it is affecting scores. And then support the industry.”
Even though Hamilton doesn’t think the public credit reporting agency is the right way to go to address financial injustice, he does think that the federal government has a large role to play. He said that on top of supporting industry and increasing oversight, Biden should also “triple down” on financial education in the U.S. so consumers understand their options and can navigate the credit system better than the generations before them.
Unlike Hamilton, Mierzwinski said that consumer advocates, himself included, think building a public credit agency is “a great idea.”
“This is a market that’s broken,” he said. “It’s like Groundhog Day, dealing with the credit bureaus, because they continue to do the things they did from the beginning, which is make a lot of mistakes, perpetuate the racial wealth gap, and refuse to treat consumers as customers because, in fact, their customers are businesses.”
Mierzwinski thinks now is the right time to turn the reins over to the public sector. For-profit credit agencies answer to investors and their corporate customers, but the CFPB was created to put the consumer first.
What happens to the Equifaxes and Experians when a public agency takes over, though? The companies also have robust international credit businesses, along with collecting and selling data in the U.S., a business that won’t be impeded by the switch.
“I don’t feel bad for the credit bureaus,” Mierzwinski said. “The credit bureaus can still collect information. And they can still run all of their data broker activities and direct marketing programs that are not related to the credit reporting systems. So it’s not like they would go away.”
Equifax directed Fortune to CDIA, and Experian and TransUnion did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
And should the establishment of the Demos version of a public credit reporting agency become reality, the shift from for-profit primacy to one public option would take seven years, so the agencies would have plenty of time to adjust their business models if need be, according to Mierzwinski and Traub.
But Biden’s ability to get anything done is still up in the air. The Senate runoffs in Georgia will determine whether Republicans maintain control under Mitch McConnell. If McConnell’s party comes out of Georgia victorious, the chances of Biden being able to build a public credit agency become slimmer, but not zero. If Democrats take control of the Senate and therefore control Congress and the presidency, there’s a good chance that the building of a public credit agency will be set into motion early on in the President-elect’s term.
How the agency is established and operates is up for debate. At the Democratic convention last year, the party adopted the idea of a public registry in its platform, but suggested it as an alternative choice for consumers rather than as an eventual replacement for the for-profit credit industry as the Demos proposal suggests. The Biden transition team did not respond to requests for comment on the President-elect’s preferred approach, but Biden’s transition website links to the Demos proposal.
Republicans and Democrats tend to agree that the current system lacks necessary transparency, and many also agree that it perpetuates inequality. Should Congress remain split, green-lighting a public credit reporting agency could find bipartisan support, but it wouldn’t come without a fight from consumer advocates and lawmakers.