@Anonymous wrote:A flawless account with respect to payment history simply means making on time payments. It doesn't have anything to do with the amount you pay, so long as it meets the "minimum" and it's made on time every month. Utilization is also not factored into payment history at all, as "utilization" is its own sector of the FICO pie.
I didn't mean flawless the way FICO sees it I mean flawless the way Capital One sees it.
Yes your credit reports from annual credit report are your "real" credit reports that may look a little different than what you see from the different monitoring software sites.
The "real" reports all differ too. Let me run it down for you. Maybe once you've seen it you can explain it.
Equifax:
I have 3 and they all differ.
May 2017 shows a 5 year graphic beginning with 2017 so it doesn't even go as far back as 2010 and 2011. Nor is there any verbiage that says anything about the number of lates.
February 2017 only goes as far back as 2013 where there was a single late payment for the whole year.
August 2016 shows the most. Its graphic shows 2013 to 2007, which is the whole enchilada time-line wise. BUT, it doesn't show as many lates as there were and most of the month squares just say NR.
TransUnion:
I have 2, they align perfectly and report the data I know to be true.
February 2017 does report the 2 charge-offs I was telling you about that are almost always missing from the other websites.
August 2016 was the report before I began my disput (that there was an amount written off). But otherwise it's identical to 2017 minus the lates that had fallen off by then.
Experian:
I only have 1. I had others but seem to have tossed them.
June 2017 reports just like TransUnion (accurately) with the exception that it's still reporting that an amount was charged off. This was the topic of my first thread -- trying to figure out how to dispute Experian itself, not the original creditor. To date I've been unsuccessful.
@Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like if anything, less of your negatives are shown on your reports than should be the case if they were all accurately reported, right?
Noooo. Take Equifax, since they are the most inconsistent, if I look at EQ via Karma, it's totally accurate -- all the late payments I'm supposed to have are there. What isn't accurate is the "real report". That's why I'm saying it's such a mystery. I have the same issue with Experian. The EX full-report websites (like FreeCreditReport) have the correct information whereas the official copy has the critical error.
On none of your reports do you see additional late payments reported that didn't happen, right?
No. Just the 6K written off that I'm still trying to dispute on Experian.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say flawless the way Capital One sees it not the way FICO sees it.
Earlier you said this to me: "Assuming you have flawless payment history on that account, I'd use that as support for your argument that your auto loan account is a fluke." So since what I'm going to try to do is request a good will removal of some or all of those lates (your idea) using my credit card history with Cap One as leverage, what I'm asking is if Cap One will consider the way I've been paying my cards with them "flawless". You know, since I do carry a balance but always make a larger-than-the-minimum payment. Will such a history help me in my appeal to them? As opposed to someone who PIF every month.
@Anonymous wrote:All they care about is if you're paying your bill every month on time. That's it. Whether you are paying the minimum payment, twice it, or PIF really doesn't matter. As long as you're making on-time monthly payments, you are satisfying the terms of your account and displaying your sound creditworthiness. With respect to this discussion and situation, paying minimum payments is no "worse" than PIF behavior. In fact, one could argue that they could even prefer you NOT PIF, as they'll receive interest and make more money off of you. Anyway, as long as your account is "clean" using it as leverage is the way to go when discussing your dirty account with the same lender.
Got it. Thank you.
@Anonymous wrote:Regarding the late payment discussion above, I believe that 30 day late payments are scored diffently than more severe late payments. There have been many arguments on this forum as to whether or not a 60 is considered a "major" or a "minor" delinquency, where everyone agrees that 30 is a minor and a 90+ is a major. Even FICO wording when describing late payment severities depending on the source (and maybe even scoring model) is sort of unclear on 60's and I've read opposing information as to whether they are scored as minor or major.
Donny's data sort of suggests that 60's are considered majors, as when he had 2 60's (final baddies) fall off he saw a 44 point gain. If they are majors, whether it was 1 or 2 60's really wouldn't matter, as the removal of one may have yielded him 2-3 points and then the other the remaining 41-42 points. The 30 day late however only resulted in a 18 point gain. It can be theorized that if there were additional 30's, they may be worth a couple of points each at best. Of course these values are being compared between two bureaus, so it isn't exactly apples to apples here, but I wouldn't think they'd be off by more than 4-8 points or so.
Delinquencies are tough though, as you're dealing with both severity and time. Severity is somewhat clear, but time is more difficult to assess with respect to how much scoring sting is "lost" as time passes. For example, two otherwise identical profiles that have 3 different 30 day late payments each would be scored the same if they happened at the same time. If one person had the three 30's in 2015 and the other had them all in 2017, we know that the person with the more recent late payments is going to possess the lower score. Trying to figure how much lower and how time dilutes the potency of late payments is always going to be an ongoing discussion.
For all those reasons it will be very interesting what happens to my score come October and each month after that until January 2019. The latter is a long way off in terms of the "final baddie" but I'm hoping to see some positive change as each 30, then 60 and then those 2 CO's drop off. Good thing I'm already keeping a detailed spreadsheet.