BAC's Brendan McKay Takes Aim at Credit Bureau Monopoly Power
The mortgage industry is no stranger to regulatory frustration, but one of its most prominent advocacy voices is turning up the volume — loudly. Brendan McKay, chief advocacy officer for the Broker Action Coalition (BAC), has publicly declared that he is fed up with the way the "big three" credit bureaus operate, and his message to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion is simple: enough is enough.
In a pointed LinkedIn post, McKay laid out a case that has been building in the mortgage broker community for years. His argument cuts to the heart of a market distortion that, he contends, allows the three dominant credit reporting agencies to behave more like protected monopolies than competitive businesses. And the data he cites to back that claim is hard to ignore: a staggering 400% increase in credit report costs over the past decade.
The Government-Mandated Market Advantage No One Talks About
At the core of McKay's criticism is a structural issue embedded in the regulatory framework governing the U.S. mortgage industry. Federal rules effectively require mortgage lenders to purchase credit data from the big three bureaus as part of the loan origination process. There is no opt-out, no meaningful alternative, and no free-market mechanism that would ordinarily keep pricing in check.
McKay argues this arrangement gives Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion a level of protection from competition and market power that most businesses could never dream of. In a truly free market, businesses that raise prices aggressively or engage in practices consumers dislike would face the natural consequence of losing customers to competitors. But when a captive audience is written into the regulatory code, that accountability disappears.
This is the double standard at the heart of McKay's complaint. The credit bureaus operate within a government-created framework that shields them from the competitive pressures other industries face — yet they are not held to the higher standard of accountability that typically accompanies such privilege.
400% Cost Increase: The Numbers Behind the Outrage
To put McKay's frustration in concrete terms, consider what a 400% increase in credit report costs actually means for the mortgage industry and the consumers it serves. A decade ago, the cost of pulling a tri-merge credit report — a standard requirement in the mortgage process — was a manageable line item. Today, that same report costs dramatically more, with no proportional improvement in the underlying data quality or service delivery that would justify such an increase.
For mortgage brokers and lenders operating on tight margins, these rising costs are not absorbed in a vacuum. They get passed along the chain, ultimately landing on borrowers who are already navigating one of the most expensive transactions of their lives. At a time when housing affordability is a national crisis, credit report fees that have quadrupled in ten years represent a meaningful, if under-discussed, drag on the system.
The BAC-branded image McKay included in his post was designed to make this point visually — and to spark a broader conversation about a cost structure that the industry has largely accepted as an unavoidable reality, even as it has grown increasingly untenable.
Selling Consumer Data Without Permission
McKay's criticism extends beyond pricing. He also takes issue with how the credit bureaus use their privileged market position in other ways — specifically, the practice of selling consumer data without permission. This is a particularly sensitive issue given the sensitive nature of the information these agencies hold.
Credit bureaus collect extraordinarily detailed financial profiles on virtually every American adult. That data has significant commercial value, and the bureaus have historically monetized it in ways that go well beyond their core credit-reporting function. When a consumer applies for a mortgage, for example, that inquiry can trigger the sale of that consumer's information to competing lenders — a practice known as trigger leads — without the consumer's knowledge or consent.
This practice has drawn increasing scrutiny from mortgage professionals, consumer advocates, and lawmakers alike. Critics argue it is emblematic of a broader pattern: companies that benefit from a government-protected market position behaving as though the normal rules of consumer consent and competitive fairness simply do not apply to them.
What the Broker Action Coalition Is Demanding
The BAC has been one of the most active advocacy organizations in the mortgage space, consistently pushing for regulatory reform that levels the playing field for independent brokers and their clients. McKay's public call-out of the credit bureaus is part of a larger strategy to shine a light on systemic issues that affect the cost and accessibility of homeownership.
Among the changes advocates like McKay are pushing for:
- Greater transparency in how credit report pricing is set and what justifies increases over time.
- Stricter consumer consent requirements before credit inquiry data can be sold to third parties.
- Legislative or regulatory action to introduce meaningful competition into the credit data market used by mortgage lenders.
- Accountability mechanisms that apply proportionate scrutiny to entities operating with government-mandated market protections.
Why This Matters for Mortgage Brokers and Borrowers
The frustration McKay has articulated resonates across the independent mortgage broker community because it touches something fundamental: the sense that the rules of the game are not applied equally. Brokers and lenders must comply with an extensive web of regulations governing how they originate, price, and disclose the terms of loans. Compliance costs are significant, and the regulatory environment is demanding.
Against that backdrop, watching the institutions they are required by law to do business with operate with far less accountability feels deeply inequitable. McKay's message is not anti-regulation — it is a demand for consistent standards. If mortgage professionals are held to rigorous rules in the name of consumer protection, the argument goes, then the data providers those professionals are forced to use should be held to equally rigorous standards.
A Turning Point in the Industry Conversation?
McKay's LinkedIn post sparked engagement across the mortgage industry, reflecting how widely shared this frustration is. Whether that frustration translates into meaningful regulatory change remains to be seen. The credit bureau industry is well-resourced and has significant influence in Washington, and reform efforts in this space have historically moved slowly.
But the conversation is evolving. The combination of dramatic cost increases, growing awareness of trigger lead practices, and vocal advocacy from organizations like the BAC has created more momentum for reform than existed even a few years ago. McKay's public declaration — "enough is enough" — may prove to be a rallying point for an industry that is increasingly unwilling to accept the status quo.
For borrowers, brokers, and lenders alike, the stakes are real. Credit report costs are just one piece of the affordability puzzle, but they are a piece that policy has the power to address — if the will to act can be summoned. The BAC, for its part, is clearly determined to keep pushing until it is.