美国信用评级机构黑箱操作，拜登怎么治？
美国号称是全球信贷体系最发达的国家，不过如果你问问美国消费者权益人士的意见，他们会告诉你，美国的信用行业不过虚有其表。美国的三大商业化消费者信用评价机构Equifax、TransUnion和益博睿（Experian）都难逃黑箱操作的嫌疑，它们收集和贩卖消费者的数据，然后对我们的金融行为进行评分，却又不告诉我们评分标准，同时又固化了种族间的贫富差距。
因此，很多消费者权益人士呼吁，美国应该成立一个公立信用评级机构。而作为当选总统的乔•拜登也采纳了左派智库Demos的一项相关提案。
该提案建议，美国应该在消费者金融保护局（Consumer Financial Protection Bureau）下设一个公立的信用报告机构，通过数年时间，逐步取代美国当前的营利性信用评级机制。该提案的作者艾米•特劳布认为，该机构应该以消费者的需求为导向，而不以评级机构的自身营利为导向。
拜登的社区住房投资计划中也有这么一段：“目前的信用报告都是由三家大型私营公司出具的，这些报告里充斥着各种问题，往往错漏百出，以它们生成信用评分的依据来评价，很多人都成了‘信用缺失者’，而且它们还助长了种族间的差异。”
信用评分几乎影响了美国人金融生活的每一个角落。如果你的信用评分不理想，你不管是申请房贷车贷还是求职创业都会受到影响。而信用评分的决定机制，也加剧和固化了美国的种族主义，以及一些让黑人、拉美裔和其他少数民族群体深受其害的政策。
自从Equifax爆出泄露1.45亿人的隐私数据丑闻以来，美国信贷行业已经因为缺乏透明度和加剧了社会不公而受到越来越多的抨击。这场新冠疫情也让人们愈发关注这个问题，消费者的投诉也急剧增加。据美国公共利益研究集团（U.S. PIRG）的联邦消费项目高级主任艾德•米尔兹温斯基介绍，截至12月中旬，美国消费者金融保护局已经收到40多万起涉信用评分的投诉，较上年增加了47%。
特劳布说：“我认为时机已经到了。”他对拜登接受该提案持乐观态度，而且该提议在2019年就得到了民主党参议员伯尼•桑德斯的支持。
这与以前相比，当然是一个巨大的提升。拜登这次之所以能够成功胜选，还是由于他在解决种族差异、促进经济公平上给美国人做了巨大的承诺。而这个计划刚好可以成为拜登兑现胜选目标的一块拼图。
美国现行的信用评分体系，以及负责评分的这几家商业公司，对美国社会不同种族间贫富差距的加大，以及对种种歧视性政策的固化，是负有很大责任的。Demos智库认为，现行信用评分体系下的评分机制和其他借贷算法不成比例地标高了黑人和拉美裔的借贷风险。这些少数民族群体的档案也很可能“更薄”，他们的信用史也可能相对很短，让许多贷款机构认为他们存在借贷风险。
根据Demos的提案，这家公立的信用报告机构能够开发一种透明的算法，更加注重公平公正，消除少数族裔群体以合理利率获得信贷的阻碍。比如医疗债务就是一个典型的例子，该提案认为，医疗债务不应该被列入个人信贷史。因为医疗债务往往不是人们在考虑偿还能力后做出的理性决策，而通常是在紧急状况下举借的，举借人需要等到治疗结束，才知道这笔钱的数额。而在现今的美国，新冠疫情已经导致失业率再创新高，加之美国的医疗保险本来就与就业深度绑定，医疗债务规模的大幅增长是意料中的事情。所以这家公立信用评级机构一旦成立，它应该会将车贷纳入评分体系，而不会将医疗债务纳入进去。
在新的信用评价体系下，如果消费者无力偿还掠夺性贷款，那么这也将不会被计入评价体系。该提案指出：“一名消费者就算无力偿还一笔不合格贷款（比如在2008年金融危机爆发前，有借贷机构在有色人种社区里大肆推销不良抵押贷款），这也不能证明该消费者没有能力偿还一笔公平条件的贷款。”
拜登的公立信贷评价机构也可能会考虑计入一些新数据，比如消费者的现金流、租房史，或者支付公用事业账单（如水电煤气等）的情况等——前提是在消费者同意的情况下。其实这种模式已经在金融科技领域得到了应用，让一些被传统银行视为不值得放款的人获得了贷款。公立信用评价机构也可以采取这种模式，当然这些并非是强制性的。
消费者数据行业协会（Consumer Data Industry Association）是一个美国消费者信贷评级机构的行业组织，美国几大主流贷评级机构都是其会员。该协会的理事长兼首席执行官弗朗西斯•克莱顿称：“新机构应该会支持这些能够为信用报告机制提供更加准确、可靠的数据的政策，以帮助那些缺少信贷资源的消费者更容易地获得贷款。消费者数据行业协会会支持这些举措，我们也将一如既往地倡导旨在实现这些目标的政策创新。”
金融科技和银行业服务公司One的首席执行官布莱恩•汉密尔顿表示，他认同公立信用评价体系的“精神内核”，不过他认为，私营行业比政府更适合解决提案里指出的问题。他认为，联邦政府应该强制增加信用评价的依据，并对信用评分的可靠性和信用机构收集到的公民信息加强监督。不过就建立公立评价机构而言，现在从事这项工作的传统银行、信用机构、金融科技公司已经不在少数了，政府再从零开始建立一个公立信用评价机构，未免有劳民伤财之嫌。
他表示：“我支持私营行业在政府支持下解决问题，也支持它们的目标。它们的目标是正确的，我百分之百表示支持。同时我认为，应该推动现有信用评价机构在评价体系中纳入非传统的数据，并且加大在公民信息使用和评分制定上的透明度，然后支持行业发展。”
虽然汉密尔顿并不认为建立公立信用评价机构是解决金融领域公平问题的正确途径，但他确实赞同联邦政府可以在这个问题上发挥巨大作用。他表示，除了支持行业发展和加强监管之外，拜登还应该加强美国的金融教育力度，让消费者了解他们的选择，使他们能够比前几代人更好地驾驭美国的信贷体系。
与汉密尔顿不同，米尔兹温斯基表示，包括他本人在内的消费者权益人士都认为，建立一个公立信用评价机构是一个“很好的想法”。
“这是一个有缺陷的市场。”他说：“与信贷评级机构打交道就像电影《土拨鼠之日》（Groundhog Day）一样，因为它们反复做着它们从一开始就在做的事情——那就是犯很多错误，固化种族间的贫富差距，而且拒绝把消费者当作客户。因为事实上，它们的客户是企业。”
米尔兹温斯基认为，现在是时候把权力移交给公共部门了。营利性信贷机构要对投资者和它们的企业客户负责，而消费者金融保护局则会把消费者放在首位。
如果这样一个公立评价机构真的成立了，Equifax和益博睿等营利性信用评价机构会受到什么影响呢？这些公司还有强劲的国际信用业务，此外还可以在美国收集和贩卖数据，至少这些业务不会受到什么影响。
米尔兹温斯基称：“我并不为这些信用机构感到难过。它们依然能够收集信息，可以开展与信用评价机制无关的数据代理业务和直接营销项目。所以它们并不会消失。”
就这个问题，Equifax建议《财富》杂志联系美国消费者数据行业协会，而益博睿和TransUnion并未回应我们的多次置评请求。
米尔兹温斯基和特劳布都认为，如果Demos版的公立信用评价机构真的成为现实，那么美国信用评价体系由私立向公立的转变可能要花7年才能够完成。所以如果必要的话，相关的营利性信用机构有充分的时间来调整它们的商业模式。
不过拜登是否有能力主导改革，仍然是一个未知数。现在佐治亚州的参议员选举尚未尘落定，它将直接决定以米奇•麦康奈尔为代表的共和党人能否维持对参议院的控制地位。如果共和党拿下了佐治亚州的参议员席位，那么拜登当政期间，联邦政府设立公立信用评价机构的可能性不说为零，也会小上很多。如果民主党控制了参议院，那就同时拿下了国会和政府的主导权，那么美国很有可能在拜登任内的早期就启动公立信用评价机构的建设。
至于该机构如何建立和运行，还有待进一步讨论。在今年的民主党大会上，民主党采纳了建立公立信用评价机构的想法，但建议将其作为消费者的一种选择，而不是像Demos提案所建议的那样，让它最终取代营利性信用评价行业。我们联系了拜登的过渡团队，请其评价拜登本人更青睐哪种意见，但未获置评。不过拜登的过渡网站上却发布了Demos提案的链接。
目前，美国两党都倾向于认为当前的信用评价体系缺乏必要的透明度，很多人也同意它固化了社会的不公平。就算美国国会继续分裂，两党也有可能会给建立公立信用评价机构开绿灯。但如果没有消费者权益人士和立法者的斗争，这一天可能不会来得这么容易。（财富中文网）
译者：朴成奎
美国号称是全球信贷体系最发达的国家，不过如果你问问美国消费者权益人士的意见，他们会告诉你，美国的信用行业不过虚有其表。美国的三大商业化消费者信用评价机构Equifax、TransUnion和益博睿（Experian）都难逃黑箱操作的嫌疑，它们收集和贩卖消费者的数据，然后对我们的金融行为进行评分，却又不告诉我们评分标准，同时又固化了种族间的贫富差距。
因此，很多消费者权益人士呼吁，美国应该成立一个公立信用评级机构。而作为当选总统的乔•拜登也采纳了左派智库Demos的一项相关提案。
该提案建议，美国应该在消费者金融保护局（Consumer Financial Protection Bureau）下设一个公立的信用报告机构，通过数年时间，逐步取代美国当前的营利性信用评级机制。该提案的作者艾米•特劳布认为，该机构应该以消费者的需求为导向，而不以评级机构的自身营利为导向。
拜登的社区住房投资计划中也有这么一段：“目前的信用报告都是由三家大型私营公司出具的，这些报告里充斥着各种问题，往往错漏百出，以它们生成信用评分的依据来评价，很多人都成了‘信用缺失者’，而且它们还助长了种族间的差异。”
信用评分几乎影响了美国人金融生活的每一个角落。如果你的信用评分不理想，你不管是申请房贷车贷还是求职创业都会受到影响。而信用评分的决定机制，也加剧和固化了美国的种族主义，以及一些让黑人、拉美裔和其他少数民族群体深受其害的政策。
自从Equifax爆出泄露1.45亿人的隐私数据丑闻以来，美国信贷行业已经因为缺乏透明度和加剧了社会不公而受到越来越多的抨击。这场新冠疫情也让人们愈发关注这个问题，消费者的投诉也急剧增加。据美国公共利益研究集团（U.S. PIRG）的联邦消费项目高级主任艾德•米尔兹温斯基介绍，截至12月中旬，美国消费者金融保护局已经收到40多万起涉信用评分的投诉，较上年增加了47%。
特劳布说：“我认为时机已经到了。”他对拜登接受该提案持乐观态度，而且该提议在2019年就得到了民主党参议员伯尼•桑德斯的支持。
这与以前相比，当然是一个巨大的提升。拜登这次之所以能够成功胜选，还是由于他在解决种族差异、促进经济公平上给美国人做了巨大的承诺。而这个计划刚好可以成为拜登兑现胜选目标的一块拼图。
美国现行的信用评分体系，以及负责评分的这几家商业公司，对美国社会不同种族间贫富差距的加大，以及对种种歧视性政策的固化，是负有很大责任的。Demos智库认为，现行信用评分体系下的评分机制和其他借贷算法不成比例地标高了黑人和拉美裔的借贷风险。这些少数民族群体的档案也很可能“更薄”，他们的信用史也可能相对很短，让许多贷款机构认为他们存在借贷风险。
根据Demos的提案，这家公立的信用报告机构能够开发一种透明的算法，更加注重公平公正，消除少数族裔群体以合理利率获得信贷的阻碍。比如医疗债务就是一个典型的例子，该提案认为，医疗债务不应该被列入个人信贷史。因为医疗债务往往不是人们在考虑偿还能力后做出的理性决策，而通常是在紧急状况下举借的，举借人需要等到治疗结束，才知道这笔钱的数额。而在现今的美国，新冠疫情已经导致失业率再创新高，加之美国的医疗保险本来就与就业深度绑定，医疗债务规模的大幅增长是意料中的事情。所以这家公立信用评级机构一旦成立，它应该会将车贷纳入评分体系，而不会将医疗债务纳入进去。
在新的信用评价体系下，如果消费者无力偿还掠夺性贷款，那么这也将不会被计入评价体系。该提案指出：“一名消费者就算无力偿还一笔不合格贷款（比如在2008年金融危机爆发前，有借贷机构在有色人种社区里大肆推销不良抵押贷款），这也不能证明该消费者没有能力偿还一笔公平条件的贷款。”
拜登的公立信贷评价机构也可能会考虑计入一些新数据，比如消费者的现金流、租房史，或者支付公用事业账单（如水电煤气等）的情况等——前提是在消费者同意的情况下。其实这种模式已经在金融科技领域得到了应用，让一些被传统银行视为不值得放款的人获得了贷款。公立信用评价机构也可以采取这种模式，当然这些并非是强制性的。
消费者数据行业协会（Consumer Data Industry Association）是一个美国消费者信贷评级机构的行业组织，美国几大主流贷评级机构都是其会员。该协会的理事长兼首席执行官弗朗西斯•克莱顿称：“新机构应该会支持这些能够为信用报告机制提供更加准确、可靠的数据的政策，以帮助那些缺少信贷资源的消费者更容易地获得贷款。消费者数据行业协会会支持这些举措，我们也将一如既往地倡导旨在实现这些目标的政策创新。”
金融科技和银行业服务公司One的首席执行官布莱恩•汉密尔顿表示，他认同公立信用评价体系的“精神内核”，不过他认为，私营行业比政府更适合解决提案里指出的问题。他认为，联邦政府应该强制增加信用评价的依据，并对信用评分的可靠性和信用机构收集到的公民信息加强监督。不过就建立公立评价机构而言，现在从事这项工作的传统银行、信用机构、金融科技公司已经不在少数了，政府再从零开始建立一个公立信用评价机构，未免有劳民伤财之嫌。
他表示：“我支持私营行业在政府支持下解决问题，也支持它们的目标。它们的目标是正确的，我百分之百表示支持。同时我认为，应该推动现有信用评价机构在评价体系中纳入非传统的数据，并且加大在公民信息使用和评分制定上的透明度，然后支持行业发展。”
虽然汉密尔顿并不认为建立公立信用评价机构是解决金融领域公平问题的正确途径，但他确实赞同联邦政府可以在这个问题上发挥巨大作用。他表示，除了支持行业发展和加强监管之外，拜登还应该加强美国的金融教育力度，让消费者了解他们的选择，使他们能够比前几代人更好地驾驭美国的信贷体系。
与汉密尔顿不同，米尔兹温斯基表示，包括他本人在内的消费者权益人士都认为，建立一个公立信用评价机构是一个“很好的想法”。
“这是一个有缺陷的市场。”他说：“与信贷评级机构打交道就像电影《土拨鼠之日》（Groundhog Day）一样，因为它们反复做着它们从一开始就在做的事情——那就是犯很多错误，固化种族间的贫富差距，而且拒绝把消费者当作客户。因为事实上，它们的客户是企业。”
米尔兹温斯基认为，现在是时候把权力移交给公共部门了。营利性信贷机构要对投资者和它们的企业客户负责，而消费者金融保护局则会把消费者放在首位。
如果这样一个公立评价机构真的成立了，Equifax和益博睿等营利性信用评价机构会受到什么影响呢？这些公司还有强劲的国际信用业务，此外还可以在美国收集和贩卖数据，至少这些业务不会受到什么影响。
米尔兹温斯基称：“我并不为这些信用机构感到难过。它们依然能够收集信息，可以开展与信用评价机制无关的数据代理业务和直接营销项目。所以它们并不会消失。”
就这个问题，Equifax建议《财富》杂志联系美国消费者数据行业协会，而益博睿和TransUnion并未回应我们的多次置评请求。
米尔兹温斯基和特劳布都认为，如果Demos版的公立信用评价机构真的成为现实，那么美国信用评价体系由私立向公立的转变可能要花7年才能够完成。所以如果必要的话，相关的营利性信用机构有充分的时间来调整它们的商业模式。
不过拜登是否有能力主导改革，仍然是一个未知数。现在佐治亚州的参议员选举尚未尘落定，它将直接决定以米奇•麦康奈尔为代表的共和党人能否维持对参议院的控制地位。如果共和党拿下了佐治亚州的参议员席位，那么拜登当政期间，联邦政府设立公立信用评价机构的可能性不说为零，也会小上很多。如果民主党控制了参议院，那就同时拿下了国会和政府的主导权，那么美国很有可能在拜登任内的早期就启动公立信用评价机构的建设。
至于该机构如何建立和运行，还有待进一步讨论。在今年的民主党大会上，民主党采纳了建立公立信用评价机构的想法，但建议将其作为消费者的一种选择，而不是像Demos提案所建议的那样，让它最终取代营利性信用评价行业。我们联系了拜登的过渡团队，请其评价拜登本人更青睐哪种意见，但未获置评。不过拜登的过渡网站上却发布了Demos提案的链接。
目前，美国两党都倾向于认为当前的信用评价体系缺乏必要的透明度，很多人也同意它固化了社会的不公平。就算美国国会继续分裂，两党也有可能会给建立公立信用评价机构开绿灯。但如果没有消费者权益人士和立法者的斗争，这一天可能不会来得这么容易。（财富中文网）
译者：朴成奎
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.
Since the Equifax breach, which compromised the personal data of more than 145 million people, the credit industry has come under increased fire for its lack of transparency and its deepening of inequity. The coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on those issues, and consumer complaints have skyrocketed. As of mid-December, the CFPB has already received over 400,000 complaints—47% more than the previous annual record set in 2019—led by those about credit reporting, according to senior director of U.S. PIRG’s federal consumer program Ed Mierzwinski.
“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 this 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.
