Discover CLI~~~~~

[enharu]

---

@RyVision wrote:

With computer systems upgrading through every industry and laws regarding credit, I would say that "B" is a waste of time with 99.9% surety.

---

pretty much what I think.

But if it bumps off for any reason my good closed account I'd be mad as hell lol.

[Rackham94]

what is the difference between B* and C*???

[Rackham94]

Never mind went on to B* forum board....

Wow going to try with 3 daily pullers for 28 days and see if it works

[enharu]

---

@Rackham94 wrote:

Never mind went on to B* forum board....

Wow going to try with 3 daily pullers for 28 days and see if it works

---

If it does work, people employed by those CRAs and responsible for this ought to be fired lol.

[lg8302ch]

---

@Rackham94 wrote:

Never mind went on to B* forum board....

Wow going to try with 3 daily pullers for 28 days and see if it works

---

Good luck and please let us know if you have any success. 

[Shogun]

     It's a bad idea all around.  Was popular awhile back.  Even discussed here for awhile.  But bad things started happening.  Positive accounts were disappearing, people were getting split files and having to go through the process of having them spliced back together.  It can really mess things up.

     And it's called bumpage,.. That B* is how it's referred to on another board.  I have no idea why they won't say the name but can talk about it.  

[dodgerslv]

---

@enharu wrote:

---

@Shogun wrote:

Yes, they are now more attuned to it.  Now they often just start bumping off old good accounts instead of Inqs.  

---

Ouch. I would be mad if they bumped off my closed auto loans. That will kill my AAoA lol

wait, does this mean I shouldnt pull my reports that often -_-

---

I have the same question. I pull my reports everyday almost.

[LS2982]

I dont understand people that intentionally do that. Do you not think on a manual review a UW isnt gonna notice a slew of new accounts and few INQs??

Not to mention it is unethical as well.

[RyVision]

 To add to the logic LS pointed out.  I don't remember where I read it (was some time ago), just remember reading it in more than one place;  that the INQs only disappear from the report the consumer sees, not what a lender is able to pull.  I don't know if that's fact or not, I only know the best sure way to keep INQs low is by not applying very often and spacing out applications.

I have a feeling people are wasting a lot of time and effort (maybe even some money for the ability), in attempts to accomplish the impossible.  For those reading, do NOT apply thinking there's a magic way to remove INQs, you may regret it and be very disappointed.  (No offense to the OP, just advice for people researching).

[Open123]

Once upon a time, this was very effective in removing hard inquiries.  

Now, since it's become common knowledge, it's much less effective and not to mention overly costly.  The timing is very difficult to anctipate, but it's still possible, however your results will be mixed with potential side effects.  Split files, reinsertions and a variety of potential mishaps.

In my view, it isn't worth the effort, expense, or risk now; unless, you just want to try it for fun.