No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@MarineVietVet wrote:But a GW for any reason is not disputing the accuracy of the reporting. It's simply asking that the accurate reporting is removed early. By the very act of GW'ing the writer is confirming and agreeing to the accuracy of the reporting.
I suppose that's right - but to me, it's really not any better. At that point they're admitting there's accurate information they want removed, and the lender is helping them cheat the system and mislead future creditors by hiding derogatory facts about their credit history (defaults, delinquencies, late payments, collections, etc).
I get what you're saying, but I feel like that's just as dishonest as disputing accurate information. All you're doing is getting someone else (i.e. the creditor or collections agency) help you lie and remove the baddy from the report at that point.
But since you're the mod and I'm not, I suppose my opinion is irrelevant, so you might as well delete this whole thread so nobody tries to do anything dishonest.
Edit: Typos.. everywhere.
@Anonymous wrote:
I suppose that's right - but to me, it's really not any better. At that point they're admitting there's accurate information they want removed, and the lender is helping them cheat the system and mislead future creditors by hiding derogatory facts about their credit history (defaults, delinquencies, late payments, collections, etc).
I get what you're saying, but I feel like that's just as dishonest as disputing accurate information. All you're doing is getting someone else (i.e. the creditor or collections agency) help you lie and remove the baddy from the report at that point.
But since you're the mod and I'm not, I suppose my opinion is irrelevant, so you might as well delete this whole thread so nobody tries to do anything dishonest.
Edit: Typos.. everywhere.
Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. Nothing has been said here that is out of line. And my reminder about not disputing accurate information was not directed just at you.
New menbers are joining all the time and my comment might be the first time they've ever read anything like that and it's something they (hopefully) will remember going forward.
From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".
@MarineVietVet wrote:
Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. Nothing has been said here that is out of line. And my reminder about not disputing accurate information was not directed just at you.
New menbers are joining all the time and my comment might be the first time they've ever read anything like that and it's something they (hopefully) will remember going forward.
Point taken. I think the part that bothers me about it is that it's OK if creditors help you cheat the system, but it's not OK if you do it yourself.
Kind of like Amex backdating cards, it's nothing less than cheating the system - but since a creditor is doing it, it's ok.
Ahh, the double standards of the credit world!
@Anonymous wrote:
Point taken. I think the part that bothers me about it is that it's OK if creditors help you cheat the system, but it's not OK if you do it yourself.
Kind of like Amex backdating cards, it's nothing less than cheating the system - but since a creditor is doing it, it's ok.
Ahh, the double standards of the credit world!
On this point we are in total agreement!!
From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".
@android01 wrote:I disputed two accounts closed in good standing this year. Both accounts were around ten years old and both were due to fall off my report in March and September of 2012 respectively. I disputed them as obsolete. Both were deleted, and I saw a thirteen point increase in my FICO scores. Why? Because both were younger than my AAoA resulting in an increase in my AAoA when they were deleted.
I did the same thing, and it worked out the same way. My objectives were both to clean up my file, and to increase the AAoA. I took the position that the CRA was reporting out-of-date (not inaccurate) information about two old accounts, closed more than 7 years earlier. They did not treat my argument as frivolous, and deleted both.
You have it just right about AAoA. I wish more people -- especially the self-appointed media experts -- would grasp that simple fact about an average!
@Anonymous wrote:
@Nightfallx wrote:
They won't remove it for 7 years, it would probably hurt your fico if you removed it because of the aaoa
Say you apply for a card and get approved,but the terms (or CL) are awful, and
you decide you really don't want it.
If I didn't like the credit limit that was offered, I would not activate or use the card. I would call the card company for recon and if an immediate CLI was not provided, I would refuse to accept the card and ask for the deletion of the tradeline from all reports.
If the card company refused to delete the tradeline, I would dispute the tradeline directly with the bureaus as "inaccurate information".
If you activated or ever used the card there isn't much that you can do.
Disputing the tradeline with the bureaus is basically a "Hail Mary Pass". Nothing much to lose .
@CreditAble wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Nightfallx wrote:
They won't remove it for 7 years, it would probably hurt your fico if you removed it because of the aaoa
Say you apply for a card and get approved,but the terms (or CL) are awful, and
you decide you really don't want it.
If I didn't like the credit limit that was offered, I would not activate or use the card. I would call the card company for recon and if an immediate CLI was not provided, I would refuse to accept the card and ask for the deletion of the tradeline from all reports.
If the card company refused to delete the tradeline, I would dispute the tradeline directly with the bureaus as "inaccurate information".
If you activated or ever used the card there isn't much that you can do.
Disputing the tradeline with the bureaus is basically a "Hail Mary Pass". Nothing much to lose .
It normally wouldn't show up on reports in the first place I'd think if you never activated it.
@PetRaccoon wrote:
@CreditAble wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Nightfallx wrote:
They won't remove it for 7 years, it would probably hurt your fico if you removed it because of the aaoa
Say you apply for a card and get approved,but the terms (or CL) are awful, and
you decide you really don't want it.
If I didn't like the credit limit that was offered, I would not activate or use the card. I would call the card company for recon and if an immediate CLI was not provided, I would refuse to accept the card and ask for the deletion of the tradeline from all reports.
If the card company refused to delete the tradeline, I would dispute the tradeline directly with the bureaus as "inaccurate information".
If you activated or ever used the card there isn't much that you can do.
Disputing the tradeline with the bureaus is basically a "Hail Mary Pass". Nothing much to lose .
It normally wouldn't show up on reports in the first place I'd think if you never activated it.
Most will report whether you activate the card or not
It will stay on ypour report for at least 10 years due to the fact that this is a positive status. Disputing it could lead to it being deleted if they are unable to verify it within 45 days via online dispute or 30 days via mail.