Aging of negative information. How does it work?

Mythic850 · ‎06-05-2008

I've read a lot here about how the impact of past due payments and derogatory indicators have less impact with time. Most of the conversation centers around the "anniversary dates". I've always taken that to mean one-year, two-year, etc.

This morning I got an EQ SW Alert about a score change:

Negative Factors
The following 1 negative factor(s) are not hurting your score as much as before:
The time since your most recent past due payment or derogatory indicator is too recent

The odd thing is that I can't figure out what past due payment or derogatory indicator this might be.

I've been actively working on cleaning up my report for about two months now and most of the negative information has been deleted from the report. The only negatives that remain are:


Account1: 30, 60 90 day late in Dec - Feb 2006
Account2: 30, 60, 90, 120, 120, Charge Off in Nov 2003-Apr 2004
Account3: 90, 120, 90 in Feb, Mar, Aug 2002
          90, 120, 120 in Aug-Oct 2003
          90, 120, 90 in Mar, Apr, Sep 2004.
Account4: Same negatives as Account3.

Does anyone have any insight as to what might be going on here with the aging of negative information?

More Detail:

o All accounts report as "PAYS AS AGREED" except Account2 which reports as CHARGE-OFF (settled in full for less than full balance).

o Account1 and Account2 are revolving credit (Firestone and CapOne).

o Account3 and Account4 are both Sallie Mae student loans (a consolidated payment for two separate loans, so they are reporting it as two separate tradelines. anyone have ideas how to combat that?)

o Account1 is still open. The others are closed.

Anonymous · ‎06-05-2008

In My Opinion - this is all FICO is looking at for payment history-

Account1: 90 day late Feb 2006
Account2: Charge Off Apr 2004- it is ignoring everything except the CO status
Account3: 120 Sep 2004.

Account4: 120 Sep 2004.

Your charge off just aged a year older -

You did not list the open dates-

Mythic850 wrote:
I've read a lot here about how the impact of past due payments and derogatory indicators have less impact with time. Most of the conversation centers around the "anniversary dates". I've always taken that to mean one-year, two-year, etc.

This morning I got an EQ SW Alert about a score change:

Negative Factors
The following 1 negative factor(s) are not hurting your score as much as before:
The time since your most recent past due payment or derogatory indicator is too recent

The odd thing is that I can't figure out what past due payment or derogatory indicator this might be.

I've been actively working on cleaning up my report for about two months now and most of the negative information has been deleted from the report. The only negatives that remain are:
Account1: 30, 60 90 day late in Dec - Feb 2006
Account2: 30, 60, 90, 120, 120, Charge Off in Nov 2003-Apr 2004
Account3: 90, 120, 90 in Feb, Mar, Aug 2002
          90, 120, 120 in Aug-Oct 2003
          90, 120, 90 in Mar, Apr, Sep 2004.
Account4: Same negatives as Account3.
Does anyone have any insight as to what might be going on here with the aging of negative information?

More Detail:

o All accounts report as "PAYS AS AGREED" except Account2 which reports as CHARGE-OFF (settled in full for less than full balance).

o Account1 and Account2 are revolving credit (Firestone and CapOne).

o Account3 and Account4 are both Sallie Mae student loans (a consolidated payment for two separate loans, so they are reporting it as two separate tradelines. anyone have ideas how to combat that?)

o Account1 is still open. The others are closed.

Mythic850 · ‎06-05-2008

@Anonymous wrote:
In My Opinion - this is all FICO is looking at for payment history-

Account1: 90 day late Feb 2006
Account2: Charge Off Apr 2004- it is ignoring everything except the CO status
Account3: 120 Sep 2004.
Account4: 120 Sep 2004.

Your charge off just aged a year older -
You did not list the open dates-

I guess why question is: If the charge off date is 4/04, why I am I seeing an alert about it huring less now (4 years and 2 months later)?

I would have expected "a year older" to coincide with the aniversary month (Apr), not a couple of months later.

The open dates are:

Account1: 09/2005 (90 day late account)
Account2: 07/2003 (Charge Off account)
Account3: 09/1991 (multiple late/120 account)
Account4: Sames as Account 3

As I gathered this information, I noticed that accounts 3 and 4, have DOLA and date of last payment as 5/2005 and date closed and date report as 6/2006.

Could the alert be related to the anniversary date of one of these events?

Anonymous · ‎06-05-2008

In May it was a year-

June it was 13 months-

Do you have a detailed report the actually has the Day/month/year?

Anonymous · ‎06-05-2008

SW also doesn't check your score every day, I think its every 1 to 2 weeks so if it aged at the end of apr, it is possible it didn't check until mid-may, and it has been giving people problems of late.

Mythic850 · ‎06-05-2008

@Anonymous wrote:
SW also doesn't check your score every day, I think its every 1 to 2 weeks so if it aged at the end of apr, it is possible it didn't check until mid-may, and it has been giving people problems of late.

That's the other odd thing...EQ SW generated an alert on 6/1. It had been a week since the previous alert, so I assumed the one on 6/1 was SW doing its regular seven to ten day check. I was, quite honestly, shocked to see another alert in my inbox this morning. There was no credit alert, just the SW alert. I have no idea why it was checking again so soon after the last one. I was very happy to see a seven point increase that I wasn't anticipating.

I prior to 6/1, my last alert was 5/23. Seems like any aging would have been picked up by one of the early alerts. This appears to be something triggered in the last couple of days.

Anyone else have any other thoughts?

Anonymous · ‎06-05-2008

My other thoughts-

Be happy your getting alerts!!!!!!!!

and they are Score went UP!!!!!!!!!

@Mythic850 wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

SW also doesn't check your score every day, I think its every 1 to 2 weeks so if it aged at the end of apr, it is possible it didn't check until mid-may, and it has been giving people problems of late.

That's the other odd thing...EQ SW generated an alert on 6/1. It had been a week since the previous alert, so I assumed the one on 6/1 was SW doing its regular seven to ten day check. I was, quite honestly, shocked to see another alert in my inbox this morning. There was no credit alert, just the SW alert. I have no idea why it was checking again so soon after the last one. I was very happy to see a seven point increase that I wasn't anticipating.

I prior to 6/1, my last alert was 5/23. Seems like any aging would have been picked up by one of the early alerts. This appears to be something triggered in the last couple of days.

Anyone else have any other thoughts?

RobertEG · ‎06-06-2008

I am confused.

From recent posts, it is being implied that if lates are in a consecutive monthly string, then FICO only looks at the last, and thus most serious, derog in scoring. That makes sense to me, for one compounds upon another, and obviously the later and more serious derog in the string will score more negatively, so it inherently takes into account the affect of the prior derogs in the same string.

But what if the same account then has a later derog that is not a part of the prior consec string? I would presume that logically, both strings would score separately. Is that the understanding?

And what if any prior derog string then matures into a collection chargeoff. The collection then appears by way of a separate report by the CA to the CRA. How would FICO then be able to discontinue scoring of the prior late derogs upon which the collection report was ultimately provided? How would it know? Would not lthe prior late payment derogs as well as the CA be both scored?

Anonymous · ‎06-07-2008

IMO-

FICO takes the most severe and most recent derog-

So in you example- You had a 30,60,90 3 years ago and this year you had a 30,60 IMO- it would take the recent date and the old 90 -

As such it is not using the same string of lates in scoring - it would use a piece of each-

If this were NOT true- I would let capone go 30 days late right now-

"And what if any prior derog string then matures into a collection chargeoff" -- Fico only sees "Charge off" and deducts the points- this takes any positive payment history away from this account

"Charge off" is the most severe and XX/XX is the most recent.

A CA is a Collection- $ amount does not matter (in current version) even if the put a 120 every month for 3 years - FICO only sees "Collection" (how severe) and how recent XX/XXXX

RobertEG wrote:

I am confused.

From recent posts, it is being implied that if lates are in a consecutive monthly string, then FICO only looks at the last, and thus most serious, derog in scoring. That makes sense to me, for one compounds upon another, and obviously the later and more serious derog in the string will score more negatively, so it inherently takes into account the affect of the prior derogs in the same string.

But what if the same account then has a later derog that is not a part of the prior consec string? I would presume that logically, both strings would score separately. Is that the understanding?

And what if any prior derog string then matures into a collection chargeoff. The collection then appears by way of a separate report by the CA to the CRA. How would FICO then be able to discontinue scoring of the prior late derogs upon which the collection report was ultimately provided? How would it know? Would not lthe prior late payment derogs as well as the CA be both scored?

RobertEG · ‎06-07-2008

Thanks, Timothy! That is exactly my understanding..