Why Big Short Legend Steve Eisman Is Betting Against Fair Isaac — and Why the Market Is Furious

This article contains affiliate links. We may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Steve Eisman is shorting Fair Isaac on a heretical premise: the most powerful pricing machine in consumer finance may have finally pushed too far, inviting regulatory scrutiny, customer backlash, and credible alternatives after years of unchecked hikes. The article unpacks why a company embedded in 90% of U.S. lending decisions could be far more vulnerable than its $45 billion valuation suggests — and why Wall Street’s furious reaction may be the tell.

Steve Eisman has made a career out of standing alone in rooms full of very confident people — and being right when they’re catastrophically wrong. In 2006, that instinct led him to short subprime mortgage bonds while Wall Street laughed. By 2008, the laughter was gone, Lehman Brothers was ash, and Eisman became immortalised in The Big Short.

Now he’s done it again. This time, his target isn’t an overleveraged bank or a toxic tranche of mortgage debt. It’s Fair Isaac Corporation — the quiet, near-monopolistic company behind the FICO credit score — and the market is not taking it well.

The Company No One Questions — Until Someone Does

Fair Isaac (NYSE: FICO) occupies one of the most enviable positions in American finance. Roughly 90% of top U.S. lenders use FICO scores in underwriting decisions, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require them. Auto lenders depend on them. Credit card issuers build entire pricing models around them.

That dominance has translated into extraordinary financials:

  • FICO’s operating margin exceeded 45% in fiscal 2023
  • Revenue grew from $1.1 billion in 2020 to $1.6 billion in 2023
  • The stock surged from ~$300 in early 2020 to over $1,800 by early 2024, briefly giving the company a market cap north of $45 billion

Wall Street loves businesses like this: asset-light, recurring revenue, pricing power so strong it borders on arrogance. Until recently, almost no one questioned whether that power could be challenged.

Eisman did.

Eisman’s Core Bet: Pricing Power Has Finally Gone Too Far

Eisman has been blunt about his thesis. In interviews during late 2023 and early 2024, including appearances on CNBC and at investment conferences, he laid out a simple but uncomfortable argument: Fair Isaac has abused its monopoly — and regulators, customers, and competitors are catching up.

The flashpoint was pricing.

Between 2018 and 2023, Fair Isaac raised the price lenders pay for a single FICO score by more than 400% in some use cases, according to industry disclosures and lender testimony cited by the CFPB. Mortgage originators, already squeezed by higher interest rates, saw credit scoring costs per loan jump from roughly $3–$5 to over $15 in some workflows.

That might sound trivial. It isn’t.

For large lenders processing millions of applications, credit scoring fees ballooned into tens of millions of dollars annually — pure margin for Fair Isaac, with virtually no incremental cost.

Eisman’s view: this wasn’t smart capitalism. It was overreach.

When Regulators Start Paying Attention, Moats Get Shallow Fast

The market’s fury over Eisman’s short stems from one belief: regulators move slowly, and Fair Isaac’s grip is too entrenched to break. History suggests that confidence may be misplaced.

In October 2023, the CFPB released a scathing report accusing Fair Isaac of exploiting its market position, calling its pricing “outsized” and warning that credit scoring had become a “regressive tax on homeownership.” That language matters. It signals political intent.

At the same time, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) accelerated its push to approve alternative credit scoring models for use by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2024, both agencies formally allowed lenders to use VantageScore 4.0 alongside FICO — a move that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

Eisman’s analysis goes a step further: once regulators legitimise alternatives, lenders will force adoption. They have every incentive to do so.

The Dirty Secret of Credit Scores: Switching Costs Aren’t What You Think

Fair Isaac’s defenders often point to “switching costs” as the ultimate protection. Credit scoring models are embedded deeply in underwriting systems, compliance frameworks, and risk models. Swapping them out is hard.

True — but only up to a point.

Large lenders already run multiple models in parallel. They do this to stress-test portfolios, comply with regulatory expectations, and fine-tune pricing. Adding VantageScore or proprietary models isn’t revolutionary; it’s incremental.

Several top-10 U.S. banks privately told analysts in late 2024 that they were actively testing alternatives, not because FICO scores perform poorly — but because they’re tired of being price takers.

Eisman sees this as the inflection point. When customers stop believing a supplier is indispensable, pricing power evaporates quickly.

Why the Market Is Furious: FICO Is a “Perfect Stock”

Shorting Fair Isaac isn’t just a bet against a company. It’s a bet against a narrative Wall Street adores.

FICO ticks every box:

  • Founder-led culture and brand recognition
  • Subscription-like revenue from Scores and Software
  • Decades of proprietary data
  • No serious competition — until now
  • Stock buybacks that have reduced shares outstanding by nearly 30% since 2015

For portfolio managers, FICO became a “don’t overthink it” holding. Many funds owned it not because they modelled regulatory risk, but because it kept going up.

When Eisman publicly questioned the story, he wasn’t just challenging the valuation. He was implicitly accusing the market of complacency — something it never appreciates in real time.

Valuation: The Math Gets Uncomfortable Quickly

At its peak in early 2024, Fair Isaac traded at over 50x forward earnings — a multiple usually reserved for high-growth software firms expanding at 30–40% annually.

FICO wasn’t.

Consensus revenue growth expectations hovered around 10–12%, with earnings growth boosted largely by price increases rather than volume. Eisman’s contention: if regulators cap pricing or lenders defect even partially, margins compress fast.

Run a simple sensitivity analysis:

  • A 10% cut in score pricing could reduce operating income by roughly 15–20%
  • Apply a more normalised multiple of 25–30x earnings
  • The stock’s downside suddenly looks like 40–50%, not 10%

Markets hate asymmetry when it’s pointed out.

The Quiet Risk: Political Optics in an Election Cycle

Here’s the part many analysts underplay: credit scores sit at the intersection of housing, inequality, and access to credit — all hot-button political issues.

In 2024, homeownership affordability hit its worst level since the early 1980s, according to the National Association of Realtors. Mortgage rates spiked above 7%, and first-time buyers were squeezed out.

Against that backdrop, a company raising prices on the very tool required to buy a home becomes an easy villain.

Eisman understands politics. He knows that when lawmakers need a scapegoat that won’t tank the economy, monopolistic middlemen make convenient targets.

What the Bulls Still Get Right

This isn’t a simple good-versus-evil story. Fair Isaac remains a formidable business.

FICO scores still outperform many alternatives in predicting default risk, especially across long time horizons. The company’s analytics software division — often overlooked — sells deeply embedded risk management tools to banks and insurers worldwide.

GIF

Even Eisman has acknowledged that FICO isn’t going to zero. His bet is narrower: the stock price embeds a level of certainty that no longer exists.

That distinction matters.

How Sophisticated Investors Are Positioning

Institutional investors who take Eisman’s concerns seriously aren’t necessarily shorting the stock outright. Many are expressing caution through options strategies, such as:

  • Buying long-dated put spreads to cap downside risk
  • Pair trades: short FICO, long diversified credit bureaus like Equifax
  • Reducing exposure via factor ETFs that overweight high-multiple quality stocks

Retail investors, meanwhile, have fewer levers — but not none.

Practical Tools for Investors Watching This Battle

For readers who want to track this story with precision, a few tools stand out:

Used together, these tools offer an edge that headline-driven trading never will.

The Deeper Lesson Eisman Is Signalling

Steve Eisman isn’t just betting against Fair Isaac. He’s warning about a broader market habit: confusing durability with invincibility.

Monopolies don’t usually die overnight. They erode. First through pricing scrutiny. Then through regulatory pressure. Finally through “good enough” alternatives that customers adopt out of spite as much as savings.

The market’s anger reflects fear — not that Eisman is wrong, but that he might be early. And as anyone who’s studied The Big Short knows, being early can look exactly like being wrong — right up until it doesn’t.

Fair Isaac may survive this storm. Its stock, priced for perfection, might not.