cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Settled for less than full always better than CO, yes?

tag
money_talks
Frequent Contributor

Settled for less than full always better than CO, yes?

I have some baddies I am cleaning up on my CR but have had no luck with PFDs. So it seems these accounts will go from a "CO" to a "settled for less than full". I understand future lenders would rather see "PIF", but paying something is better than nothing right? My baddies are CCs so it will also help my util.

 

I also fear that if I wait out for a PFD my accounts can get sold to future CAs, who can report further derogatory info on my CR. IMO that is a step backwards in trying to get a clean report. I also just became aware that if the debt gets sold many times, previous CA debt owners need to update to a $0 balance but are not required to remove the TL. In addition you can get sued.

 

I know you need to do the best thing that is right for your circumstances, but does anyone have any comments on why sometimes (if any) it is better to leave it as a CO if you cannot PIF?

 

EDIT: I want to clarify that CO accounts, even though once paid, are still listed as a CO. My post implies that the CO goes away but as I understand, the CO still remains but once paid, it just further mentioned that it has been PIF or settled for less than full. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Message 1 of 4
3 REPLIES 3
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Settled for less than full always better than CO, yes?

A charge-off is an internal bookeeping measure taken by a creditor, and once done, its done.  If they choose to report it to a CRA, the subsequent payment or non-payment of the debt that was charged-off does not alter that fact, and thus does not result in deletion of the reporting.

 

The significance of a creditor having reported a CO is that it places of record in the consumer's file their observation/opinion, at that point in time, that the consumer is not going to pay the debt.  That opinion of the consumer is never favorable when read by other potential creditors, and totally apart from its scoring implications, can be damaging in a future evaluation.

 

However, if the consumer does, in fact, pay the debt, that mitigates the reported CO.  It shows that the prior creditor's perception that the consumer was going to stiff the debt does not, in fact, represent that the consumer does not pay their debt.  Rather, it shows that the consumer honors their payment of obligated debt, but was rather most likely going thru temporary hard times, and they have now been overcome, and the debt in fact paid, regardless of whether for the full amount, or for less.

Thus, in  my opinion, the answer to the question is yes, as to your credit rating as a whole, and not simply your FICO score.

 

Also, the same argument that eventual payment of the debt represents a showing contrary to what is stated by a charge-off (i.e., that the consumer is not expected to pay their debt), would be basis I would for requesting a creditor to delete an earlier reporting of a charge-off, thus making your credit report more representative of your intent to pay all obligated debt.

 

Additionally, if the debt remains unpaid, even though excluded from your credit report, it may still become known to others, and the fact that it remains unpaid simply reinforces the prior creditor perception that you are one who stiffs obligated debt.  That can live with you forever.

Message 2 of 4
guiness56
Epic Contributor

Re: Settled for less than full always better than CO, yes?


@money_talks wrote:

I have some baddies I am cleaning up on my CR but have had no luck with PFDs. So it seems these accounts will go from a "CO" to a "settled for less than full". I understand future lenders would rather see "PIF", but paying something is better than nothing right? My baddies are CCs so it will also help my util.

 

I also fear that if I wait out for a PFD my accounts can get sold to future CAs, who can report further derogatory info on my CR. IMO that is a step backwards in trying to get a clean report. I also just became aware that if the debt gets sold many times, previous CA debt owners need to update to a $0 balance but are not required to remove the TL. In addition you can get sued.

 

I know you need to do the best thing that is right for your circumstances, but does anyone have any comments on why sometimes (if any) it is better to leave it as a CO if you cannot PIF?

 

EDIT: I want to clarify that CO accounts, even though once paid, are still listed as a CO. My post implies that the CO goes away but as I understand, the CO still remains but once paid, it just further mentioned that it has been PIF or settled for less than full. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 


Yes, you are correct.  After payment it will reflect as a paid CO or payment after CO, or settled for less than full balance, something along those lines.

 

Additionally, the settlement remark is scored on par with the CO itself.  You will not be double dinged but will trade the CO negative for the settlement negative. 

Message 3 of 4
money_talks
Frequent Contributor

Re: Settled for less than full always better than CO, yes?

Thanks to both of you, very helpful.

Message 4 of 4
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.