I did my due diligence in hunting for specifically this topic however I do not seem to see it.
My SL's, which are through the DOE, give me one heck of an AAoA as well as lengthy history. That is, up until DOE decided to sell it off not once.. not twice.. but SIX! Yes - it has been resold SIX TIMES in a 2 year period, each time sending my scores down by at least 50 points.
Now, from my understandings, since the "original" date of the loan has not changed nor should it, the question at hand would be "Why would the new & sucessor lenders continue to place a NEW opened on date?" Afterall, I have not opened a new account - and other "transferred/sold" accounts (such as regular CC's or Mortgages) do not show this behavior. They show a "Date Opened" of the original date however reflect a "Reported Since" as of the new date along with a notation of "Transferred/sold".
Upon disputing, they come back as "verified" with one being "updated" to reflect THIS month as the "Opened" date.
Since I do not want to ding myself with yet another dispute process, I contacted the (last) previous lender & the latest lender directly after the verification came back as correct from both expressing the entire concern in its entirety. I advised, since the loan "transferred" should, under FCRA, report dates back to 2005 for at LEAST the opened date and the history pulled over. I can understand reporting it as a "Transferred" and even a "Reported Since", but how can you be reporting this as a NEW account - everything from the Date Opened, Reported Since, Last Payment, & the worst, CLOSED (for the "Transferred From")?
The answer with the lenders are fairly consistent: While they are "Transferred/Sold", because we acquired them on such & such date, they are NEW to us. You have no history, et.al. with us so how can we report such? My argument of the "Date Opened" with the new lender did not change since we are dealing with the same account - not a new account at all while it may be "new" to (you). As a result of statusing the account as a brand-spanking-new account, with absolutely NO history attached to it, my CR's are literally being inundated with 7 new accounts every single time this process happens. Furthermore, since they are sold so fast, no history is ever established and all that is being done is damage to me.
This leaves me with the questions originally posed of Should the "Date Opened" at minimum reflect the SAME date as the original? Otherwise, this practice, which happens to everyone obviously, is doing nothing more than harming us by giving the CRA's the 'right' to lower our scores based on the number of new accounts opened, the lack of history, the age, etc. etc. Without any history, and with 7X6=42 NEW ACCOUNTS in 2 years, all this has done is plummet my scores.
Something just isn't sitting well and I cannot believe I did not catch this sooner. With ALL the progress i have made, to have THIS type of setback with absolutely no recourse that I know of, simply cannot be legitimate.
Thanks all for your time & discussions on the matter. 
Date opened is simply the date on which that particular collection agency first opened the account.
Starting Score: 11/29/12 TU 527; EQ 565; EX 564 fako - bk7 dc'd 2/15/13
New goal 675
@guiness56 wrote:The old ones will stay with all default/lates if there were any. It doesn't matter how many times it is resold.
The new one will show when they acquired the accont. And yes, it can do damage by reducing your AAoA.
This is true for any account that sold over and over again, not just a SL.
Hey Guiness - Hope all is well
I understand this as you've explained it. The issue(s) are not only the # of times the same loan is being resold, irrespective that it is an SL, there is no history coming over with it - making not only the appearances of ALL these new loans, but new loans that have derog's attached to them. Upon the disputing, this is returned as "verified" and accurate. How could it be accurate whenever the NEW TL does not reflect the TL it came from? All that has been accomplished is the additon of 42 brand new loans, open/closed in short periods of time, no history being established, & existing history & AAoA being forced down the drain.
I just cannot "get it" through my head how these YEARS of good history gets obliterated through 42 NEW loans sold, re-sold, & re-sold to the point all that "good" has no ability to outweigh the negativty.
In my instances, with more than one loan being tacked on, AAoA continues to be hurt improperly & re-aging is occurring. Yes, I again agree & understand the new ones will have a new "opened on" or "reported since" date, but what I fail to understand nor agree with is "reported since" or "opened on" dates are not corresponding with the originals, therefore causing a de facto state of "Nothing but New" TL's with not one shred of history. Further, once the old ones are closed out, there is no way to "offset" the MANY YEARS of history/experience with an installment-type TL. 17 years of Installment experience just gets "wiped away" due to 42 re-sells?
Basically, it boils down to while true, it is a re-sold loan, why is there no reference to all the historical data? I have other loans, such as my Mortgages, which on the closed loans show "Transferred/Sold" and the NEW ones show the Date Opened as of the acquired date BUT also show "Reported since" (as the) original history. These, on the other hand, are NOT doing the same as the example I gave. The same behavior is seen on CC's that are acquired by other banks, get closed, get a new "opened" date, but have an accurate "Reported Since" date.
It would almost be fair to say that the OC and New lender failed to include the historical data, thus creating a re-aging situation (not necessarily re-aging of derogs), thus negatively & inappropriately affecting AAoA. If this held true, virutally anyone who has their loan re-sold will never be able to establish a good history/AAoA.
Maybe I am just not writing this properly... I am sorry for all the bothering & all the irritations. I'm not intending to challenge you or the like, but these resells w/o indicating historical data & payment history will make anyone having a 20 year AAoA and 20 years of payment history be lowered & lowered score-wise while being classified as "No Experience" and "# of New Accounts". One of the other posts in this thread give the exact rationale on the AD letter (...denial citing "Number of New Accounts opened, Insufficient Payment History, Length of Experience w/Installment accounts, Length of Payment History" - there's more & can get the entire plethora of reasons if need be but they all draw the same conclusion: AAoA plummeted with the 42 new accounts with 3-4 months of history each time....).
Let me know if I am still not explaining this properly or if I'm failing to describe/show the missing pieces of the puzzle. As always, thank you Guiness.
