Hrm. Had a wierd thing happen on TU apparently.
So deliquencies have a 7 year exclusion period (not being precise here); from what I'd read here over the years, your 30D or 60D or whatever would just turn to a pretty OK and go assuming it was just an individual late on the tradeline.
Transunion a little over a month early, simply took my April 2010 30D and cut the entire tradeline off prior to May 2010. Happened somewhere between Feb 4th and Feb 11th and I didn't notice it till glancing over a CK report. Prior to that it had the full tradeline history from back in 2008. Open date is still fine so that part is OK, but it's a little awkward in that I was sort of hoping the tradeline to be on there for it's full 10 years till 2020, and I have a 30/60/OK coming up before the CBCG and may airstrike the entire tradeline.
Or perhaps I didn't understand how this works correctly which is always a possibility (or TU just did something squirrley, which wouldn't be the first time). No change on EQ or EX yet, was expecting to monitor closely come April so this was a surprise. I did get a 6 point loss on TU on 2/14 according to MF monitoring which was a bit of a surprise to me as well, depending how things are calculated maybe this was a factor. Open date is still correctly in 2008 so presumably didn't change anything AAOA or oldest account wise.
@RobertEG wrote:Hard to say what actually happened.
It is possible that the removal was not due to any credit report exclusion decision by the CRA, but rather occured as a result of reporting of the deletion of the derogs by the creditor.
Another possibility is that since this occured on a CK report, and they are known for flaky/inconsistent credit reports, that it was an error in credit report creation rather than any postive exclusion by the CRA or deletion by the creditor..........
@iv wrote:For what it's worth, on CK the TU reports have only ever shown 48 months of payment history for me. (with no negatives, ever)
CK doesn't even display the greyed-out years for 5/6/7 for TU, just the most recent 48 months.
(Meanwhile, also on CK, the EQ reports show 7 years, but with all but the last 48 months as grey "U"s.)
Pulling a direct TU report from ACR does show the whole 7-ish years of "OK"s, though - so this is just a CK display oddity.
For that matter, I have accounts still reporting (less than 10 years since close, but more than 7) that no longer (on CK) show any monthly payment info at all... but they do still have that data on a real TU report.
If you haven't recently, pull a TU ACR. On the ACR, TU shows those closed accounts with the full 7-ish years of payment history that existed at the time of closing. (I have no idea what aged-off lates look like on the ACR TU report, but I'm assuming they become "N/R" or "X", rather than "OK"...)
Possible but if it were a lender report presumably it'd be similar on EX/EQ.
I did verify it on a TU direct pull to rule out CK wonkiness though I didn't mention that on the original post (mea culpa), same details. I'm sort of tempted to dispute it as the tradeline is presumably now inaccurate but disputes and me don't have a happy relationship when it comes to tradeline wierdness.
Trying the cut and paste thing from the bureau:
09/2010 | 08/2010 | 07/2010 | 06/2010 | 05/2010 |
Rating | OK | 60 | 30 | OK | OK |
And trying a cut and paste from a saved report from 1/22/17, please bear with the awful formatting but this is also from TU directly:
09/2010 08/2010 07/2010 06/2010 05/2010 04/2010 03/2010 02/2010 01/2010 12/2009
Rating OK 60 30 OK OK 30 OK OK OK OK
11/2009 10/2009 09/2009 08/2009 07/2009 06/2009 05/2009 04/2009 03/2009 02/2009
Rating OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
01/2009 12/2008 11/2008 10/2008 09/2008 08/2008 07/2008 06/2008
Rating OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Another cut and paste attempt from EX 2/18/17 report, demonstrating likely TU wierdness <snipped 2008/2009 because this cut and paste truly sucks); also note EX is still 1 month ahead on reports like it always is so the months don't quite line up.
2010
Jan OK
Feb OK
Mar OK
Apr 30
May OK
Jun OK
Jul 30
Aug 60
Sep OK
Oct OK
@iv wrote:
@Revelate wrote:Possible but if it were a lender report presumably it'd be similar on EX/EQ.
I did verify it on a TU direct pull to rule out CK wonkiness though I didn't mention that on the original post (mea culpa), same details. I'm sort of tempted to dispute it as the tradeline is presumably now inaccurate but disputes and me don't have a happy relationship when it comes to tradeline wierdness.
Trying the cut and paste thing from the bureau:
09/2010 08/2010 07/2010 06/2010 05/2010 Rating OK 60 30 OK OK
And trying a cut and paste from a saved report from 1/22/17, please bear with the awful formatting but this is also from TU directly:
09/2010 08/2010 07/2010 06/2010 05/2010 04/2010 03/2010 02/2010 01/2010 12/2009 Rating OK 60 30 OK OK 30 OK OK OK OK 11/2009 10/2009 09/2009 08/2009 07/2009 06/2009 05/2009 04/2009 03/2009 02/2009 Rating OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 01/2009 12/2008 11/2008 10/2008 09/2008 08/2008 07/2008 06/2008 Rating OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Yeah that formatting was awful.... fixed.
(A quick round-trip through Excel does wonders for cleaning up data yanked out of PDFs and websites with odd CSS...)
I certainly wouldn't dispute this, as not only is nothing actually being reported incorrectly (lack of data != wrong...), but also the time period that was chopped to seems "standard" for TU.
Looking at all of my still-open accounts on the real TU report from ACR (pulled on 2016-12-31), all OPEN accounts, regardless of age, only have payment info going back to either 2/2010 or 6/2010. (Oddly, nothing in-between. ONLY 2/2010 and 6/2010.)
Closed accounts (again, on the REAL report, not CK or others) appear "frozen in time" as of the last payment date, and show between 7-8 years of the payment history prior to the close date.
Which, thinking about it a bit.... is probably the backend reason for what you're seeing - an account that stops receiving updates stops purging old data as well. But when the exclusion period for your 30-day from 4/2010 was reached, that caused that tradeline's record to be touched, and triggered the pruning of older payment data.
It seems highly unlikely that the presence/absence of an "OK" from 7+ years ago would have any effect at all, though - AFAIK only the current status of the account and number/type of lates matters, not old/missing/purged "OK"s.
(And unless you were in the middle of a well-controlled test, I know that you, of all people, are aware that -6 points is a random-noise-level change...)
Haha yeah. I wasn't sweating the 6 points it was just an idle curiousity as my scores are pretty flat most times but I'm not about to pull a 1B report for TU to see if the ones I'm really fixed on (TU 04) moved with it. I agree that removal of said OK's shouldn't have mattered, more likely on FICO 8 the late tweaked it as some deliquency pattern bit if the change was related but there's really no way to tell. Open date counts for AAOA I would assume it does on Age of Oldest too rather than first OK which would be an awkward implementation anyway from an algorithm perspective so Occam's Razor likely applies.
Good point on Excel cleanup and thank you both for that and the response, been spending to much time in Excel lately with budget forecasting and graphs and admittedly half-assed my post data.
Ultimately any negative information deleted is good information, and at least I do have the one month after that. You bring up an interesting point though on TU reports which unfortunately I don't have a long enough history to verify. I didn't realize they were truncating data on open accounts, and a month variance may account for that. I guess I'll see what happens in September or thereabouts.
I'm not certain about the missing payment history being legit though on a closed account: the mandate is that any reported data be accurate which I'm not certain it is in this case when looked at from the admittedly irrelevant consumer perspective. If the tradeline were just up and gone that'd be a different story. I have no interest in disputing it though for a number of reasons, ideally I'd like the tradeline there for another couple of years to prop up that side of the scorecard... though to be fair I care not at all about my Transunion report.
It'll be interesting to see how EX/EQ handle it in a couple more months