Why are banks providing credit scores for free?
I think the biggest reason is price; it's a lot cheaper now than it was to offer these.  That's because for the most part, when you get a credit score for free, you're not getting a true FICO score.  You're getting instead a VantageScore. VantageScore was created by the three credit bureaus, and as such they can offer it without paying Fair Isaac a licensing fee.  That makes it a lot cheaper to offer, and while it's not absolutely identical to FICO (or more accurately to any of the FICO provided scores) it's close enough for most peoples' purpose. And of course undoubtedly Fair Isaac has some price pressure on their side now that Vantage is big enough that many people see them as fungible.  As such they've had to make it easier, or they'd lose business - no longer being a monopolist. The other relevant piece here is that probably in many of these cases they're really just offering you what Experian would give you directly - so it's just a cross-marketing thing (where Experian, or perhaps another bureau, gets access to you as a customer so they can up-sell you ID theft insurance and whatnot, while the bank gets to offer the free score). "Why are banks all of a sudden providing people their credit scores for free? Because it is a really good idea.   On an ABC Bank website, it has:  ""Check your credit score for free"" button.  You click it.  Not only will it come up with a credit score, but it could also trigger a marketing workflow.  If it is direct mail, email, or a phone call a banker could contact you for help with a debt product.  This marketing could also be targeted, say a person with a high score could be targeted for a mortgage.  A person with a low or medium score could be targeted for ways and products to improve their score. Now if you run XYZ bank and not do the same, you are losing a competitive advantage to banks that offer this.  Not only will your customers be less happy, but you will lose a great marketing opportunities.   Face it, the only people that worry about their credit score are people that are in the market to borrow.  Which again, is more information.  If you have someone that never checks their credit score, or has their credit frozen, then it is wise not to market to them debt products." Two possible reasons: You can tell which scenario it is based on the credit history they provide you. If you look at the history and they show you your scores for each month, even though you didn't initiate it, then they are auto checking it each month. If the historical dates are only on the dates you clicked on the button, they are only checking when you manually click on it. As for the why they provide it, a few years back it was a desirable feature. Now they all do it just to keep pace with everyone else. Note that most banks only provide a single scoring model from one bureau (but different banks use different bureaus). "It's the inevitable result of the Fair, Isaac Company deciding to sell access to credit scores to the general public: some marketing dude at one of the banks thought, ""Wouldn't it be a great idea if we could use 'free' access to FICO scores as a differentiator for our CCs?"" And, because most humans play follow the leader, soon enough, other banks were paying FICO a license to present FICO scores to their card holders." "An alternative take on the ""why"" is that most people's credit is better than they think, and all of these banks offer credit products.  Put a ""good credit"" badge next to an ad for a shiny new card or auto refi, and it's just good business."
Almost every bank has some kind of financial statement analysis to give a credit score to small companies asking for credit. Then the account manager will decide either to refuse because the credit score is too low or allow it and justify why he conceded credit "Several people here have highlighted the incentive/agency problems that tend to naturally arise when securitizing mortgages. However, the market for mortgage-backed securities has existed for decades, and during most of that time these agency problems were held in check. Moreover, academics knew about this problem even before the credit crisis and actually *recommended* the use of trenching in order to avoid the moral hazard problems associated with securitization (see DeMarzo 2005).  So, to give a compelling historical explanation for why the crisis happened *when* it did, you need to explain what changed in the mortgage securitization market to enable these previously unproblematic agency relationships to breakdown.  So what changed? In short, the growth of the market for CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) composed of mortgage-backed securities), and not the MBS market itself. This market grew so rapidly in the mid-2000s because the ratings agencies created an opportunity for banks to take low-rated MBS debt and give it a higher rating by merely repackaging it into a CDO. It was ratings arbitrage, through and through. Explanations that place the brunt of the blame on the GSAs (i.e. Fannie and Freddie) cannot adequately explain why the majority of mortgage-related losses during the credit crisis were concentrated in CDOs of MBSs, and not in the vanilla MBS market.  Here's what happened. Back in the day -- say, pre-early 2000s -- the agency/incentive problems that naturally arise in mortgage securitization were held in check by careful institutional investors who would rigorously assess the default risk of the higher-risk MBS tranches. They had a deep knowledge of the mortgage business. Sometimes they would even go so far as manually examining the loan documentation, the profile of the borrowers, the quality of the collateral, and so on. There were a lot of indiscriminating buyers who were happy to purchase the AAA and AA tranches, but they could afford to be indiscriminating because the banks who were securitizing MBSs knew that without selling to the discriminating buyers of higher-risk debt, they wouldn't be able to break even.   It worked a bit like a market for fine wines. I don't know much about wine, but when I walk into a shop that sells fine wines, I can be reasonably certain that there will be a reasonably strong relationship between price and the quality of the wine. Basically, I get to free-ride off the superior discrimination of the wine connoisseurs who regularly visit the shop.  Once the ratings agencies created the now infamous ""ratings arbitrage"" between the MBS and CDO markets, the market for CDOs on MBSs expanded. As this market grew, these ""discriminating"" buyers became a proportionally smaller part of the MBS market. The folks building CDOs of MBSs didn't know very much about the mortgage business itself; instead, they tended to rely on statistical default models provided by the ratings agencies that predicted the probability of mortgage default based on quantitative variables such as borrowers' credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, etc.   The problem is that these models used historical data that was collected back when the ""discriminating"" institutional investors kept the agency problems in the MBS market in check. The growth of the CDO market spurred even more mortgage securitization, which led lending standards to deteriorate because firms like Countrywide knew that the CDO buyers only cared about credit scores, LTV ratios, etc. However, undiscriminating buyers of MBS were unable to detect these changes in default risk because the models they were using to ""see"" those changes were becoming invalidated by the growth of the CDO market itself  If you want to read more about this, I'd highly recommend MacKenzie's 2011 paper in the American Journal of Sociology [see here]( http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/36082/CrisisRevised.pdf). It's a detailed historical account of the changes in valuation practices/models used within the MBS and CDO markets, and how these practices became invalidated as the CDO market grew in size.  **TL;DR: the credit ratings created a ""ratings arbitrage"" that the banks took advantage of. They are as much, if not more, at fault as the GSAs.**  For more info on the deterioration in mortgage quality in the mid-2000s, check out:   Keys, Benjamin, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening? Evidence from Subprime Loans.  Rajan, Uday, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. “The Failure of Models That Predict Failure: Distance, Incentives and Defaults.” SSRN eLibrary (December). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1296982.  Also, the citation I mentioned above:  DeMarzo, P. (2005) ""The pooling and tranching of securities: a model of informed intermediation"" Review of Economic Studies, 18(1):1-35, 2005" First, you need to be aware that the credit score reported by Mint is Equifax Credit Score. Equifax Credit Score, like FICO, Vantagescore, and others, is based on a proprietary formula that is not publicly available.  Every score is calculated with a different formula, and can vary from each other widely.  Lenders almost exclusively only use FICO scores, so the score number you have is likely different than the score lenders will use. Second, understand that the advice you see from places like Mint and Credit Karma will almost always tell you that you don't have enough credit card accounts.  The reason for this is that they make their money by referring customers to credit card applications.  They have a financial interest in telling you that you need more credit cards. Finally, realize that credit score is just a number, and is only useful for a limited number of things.  Higher is better to a point, and after that, you get no benefit from increasing your score.   My advice to you is this: Don't stress out about your credit score, especially a free score reported by Credit Karma or Mint.  If you really have a desire to find out your score, you can pay FICO to get your actual score, but it's not cheap.  You can also sometimes get your FICO score by applying for a loan and asking the lender.  I last saw my FICO scores (there were three, one from each credit bureau) when I applied for a mortgage a couple of years ago, and the mortgage rep gave them to me for free.  But honestly, knowing your score doesn't do much for you, as the best way to increase it is to simply make your payments on time and wait. Don't give in to bad conventional advice from places that are funded by the financial services industry.  The thing that makes your credit score go up is a long history of paying your bills on time.  Despite what you commonly read about credit scores, I'm not convinced that you can radically boost your scores by having lots of open credit card accounts.  At the time I applied for my last mortgage, I only had 2 open credit cards (still true), and the oldest open account was about 1.5 years old.  The average of my 3 scores was just over 800.  But I've been paying my bills on time for at least 20 years now.  Only get credit cards that you actually want, and close the ones you don't want. I visited annualcreditreport.com to get my annual credit report.  It is only the report, not the score or FICO score.  This is the only outlet I know of that allows you to get your report for free, without a bunch of strings attached or crap to sign up for and cancel later. It was very easy.  I was wary of putting in my private information, but how else can they possibly pull you up? Read the instructions carefully.  You go to each bureau to fetch your report, and they dutifully give you a free report, but they push hard to try and sell you a score or a report service.  It is easy to avoid these if you read carefully. Once you get a report,  you have print it out or you can't see it again for another year.  Each bureau has a different site, with different rules, and different identity checks to get in.  Again, read the instructions and it isn't hard. Instead of printing, I just saved the page as HTML.  You get one html file and a folder with all the images and other stuff.  This suits me but you might like to print. After you get each report, you have to click a link to back to the annualcreditreport.com site.  From there you go to the next bureau. Regarding a score.  Everybody does it differently.  Free Issac does FICO, but anybody who pulls your credit can generate a score however they like, so getting a score isn't anywhere near as important as making sure your report is accurate. You can use credit.com to simulate a score from one of the bureaus (I can't easily see which one at the moment).  It is as easy as annualcreditreport.com and I have no issue getting a simulated score and report card. One reason why keep my DCU account active.  Free fico credit scores! https://www.dcu.org/electronic_services/index.html but specifically this page https://www.dcu.org/electronic_services/FICO.html By signing up to receive your FREE credit score in PC Branch you'll be   able to monitor your credit score, receive two reasons why your credit   score is not higher, and learn how to take positive steps towards   improving your score. Other services such as this may cost you more   than $165* annually. Through DCU you can receive your Equifax FICO   Credit Score via PC Branch under Account Manager in your Inbox once a   month FREE as part of your Checking Plus or Relationship Checking   benefits. ... Digital Credit Union I too was very confused when I tried to be tricky and paid down my balance BEFORE the bill date. I thought this would be a great thing because it would show my utilization near zero percent. The opposite happen, it dropped my credit score from 762 to 708. Here is the best example I can come up with when it comes to utilization. Lets pretend you are an insurance company and you trying to figure out who are the best risk drivers. The people that drive 10% of the day are a better risk than the people that drive 50% of the day. The people that drive 50% of the day are a better risk than the people that drive 90% of the day. Here is the rub when people drive 0%. When you look at the people at 0% they appear to be walking, busing or flying. What they are NOT doing is driving. Since they are not driving (using Credit) they are viewed as POOR drivers since they are not keeping up on their driving skills. (Paying bills, watching how they spend, and managing their debt). So, now before the billing date I pay down my balance to something between 5 to 10% of my utilization. After the bill is issued, I pay it off in FULL. ( I am not going to PAY these crazy interest rates). What shows up on my credit report is a person that is driving his credit between 5 and 10% utilization. It shows I know I how to manage my revolving accounts. I know it's dumb, you would think they reward people that have zero debt, I don't hate banks I hate the game. ( I do love me some reward points =)) The article states their reasons pretty clearly, and indicates that some people won't qualify under the new requirements that would have previously, they're not courting people with bad credit, they're just looking beyond credit score at other factors. They aren't opening floodgates for anyone with a pulse to get a car loan, just shifting things a bit to cast a slightly wider net. This is not new in the world of secured debt, the FHA has methodology for establishing a non-traditional credit report based on things like rental history, utility payments, auto-insurance payments, a person can't be declined an FHA loan for lack for lack of traditional credit history. I look beyond credit score as a landlord, a tenant with poor credit but a stellar rental history is more appealing than someone with great credit but a bad rental history. Vehicles and housing are very important to people, so they are likely to prioritize them above credit card payments or hospital bills. Time will tell, but it seems like a solid move in my view, they can refine their model over time and likely find a solid customer base among those who wouldn't qualify on credit score alone. "The purpose of taking a ""secured loan"" is to build credit. This might be done by someone who had a bad stain on their credit history such as a bankruptcy or foreclosure, or possibly by someone just out of school (presumably with few or no student loans),and no credit history. Not everyone needs to, or should do this, however. The advantage for a borrower is that s/he gets to create a record of repaying a loan that will partly mitigate the bad credit history. The advantage for the bank is that it is ""no risk,"" because the savings account is the security for the loan. That would make it willing to ""lend"" to a bad credit risk."