In theory, your credit score should be simple: three digits that correspond to how big of a risk lenders take when they extend credit to you. But in practice, it’s anything but.
Consumers are frequently stymied by a bevy of different scores tailored to measure everything from risk as a mortgage-holder to risk as an insurance customer. While the scores are often similar, sometimes there can be wide discrepancies that hurt people’s ability to get the best rate on a loan or a large line of credit. Now, a recent court decision paves the way for yet another entrant into this field. Will adding another score simplify things for consumers or just make the logic behind credit scores even more impenetrable?