No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Raider wrote:
These are 2 seperate accounts but have bad things i would like to clean up.Account #1Transunion- Last Active Nov 2006/ Lates-0Equifax- Last Active Jan 2005/ Lates-18Experian- last Active Jan 2007/ Lates-33Account #2Transunion-Last Active Dec 2005/Lates -0Equifax-Last Active-Jan 2002/Lates-7xExperian- Last Active-Nov 2006/lates-17xMy scores are Exp 702, Equifax 682, Transunion 688.........There is so much deviation how do i even dispute this, how can there be so much difference, i don't even no where to start, or is it better to just leave it alone in fear of re-aging the account. I find weird stuff like this all over some accounts, i don't understand and would like some opinions, i do know if i could get some of those lates deleted i would see a major score increase.
Timothy wrote:INO- FICO only "rates" the most sever and most recent derog on each tradeline. So if you were to get all but 1 late removed from each TL- the score would not change- it would look better in a manual review though.I have the following derog information on my CR from bank America30 days late 1 time (Nov 2004)
60 days late 2 times (Jan 2005, Dec 2004)
90+ days late 7 times (Aug 2005, Jul 2005, Jun 2005, May 2005, Apr 2005, Mar 2005, Feb 2005and the TL says my account was 120 days late.Do you mean that all this has the same affect on my FICO score as a single 120 day late on this account?
marty56 wrote:
Timothy wrote:
INO- FICO only "rates" the most sever and most recent derog on each tradeline. So if you were to get all but 1 late removed from each TL- the score would not change- it would look better in a manual review though.
I have the following derog information on my CR from bank America30 days late 1 time (Nov 2004)
60 days late 2 times (Jan 2005, Dec 2004)
90+ days late 7 times (Aug 2005, Jul 2005, Jun 2005, May 2005, Apr 2005, Mar 2005, Feb 2005and the TL says my account was 120 days late.Do you mean that all this has the same affect on my FICO score as a single 120 day late on this account?
Timothy wrote:INO- FICO only "rates" the most sever and most recent derog on each tradeline. So if you were to get all but 1 late removed from each TL- the score would not change- it would look better in a manual review though.
Timothy wrote:If this was not the case - someone would be telling poeple to have a 30 after a serious derog- and i have NEVER heard this.
VistaV wrote:
Timothy wrote:INO- FICO only "rates" the most sever and most recent derog on each tradeline. So if you were to get all but 1 late removed from each TL- the score would not change- it would look better in a manual review though.
I say this with no better information or any way to dispute it, but .... this can not possibly be true! I really wish I had a way to test this on my own file, because it really defies logic to me. (Maybe this is a new GW tactic on my sole TL that has 2 lates on it )Since your score, by FiCOs admission, is largely "payment history", I can not possibly see that they would essentially count someone with a 3 month old 30 day late as the only blemish on their report the same as an indiviual with, for example, 7 30 day lates in the last year, the most recent of which was 3 months old.
Timothy wrote:If this was not the case - someone would be telling poeple to have a 30 after a serious derog- and i have NEVER heard this.
This seems to contradict your earlier assertion, and supports my point that they MUST count multipl derogs as "cumulative". In other words, it can never benefit you to add another late to a TL, under any circumstance, so it must accumulate negative points that rebuild with time.
Message Edited by VistaV on 03-21-2008 07:27 PM