No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
We pulled SO's EQ. It is now clean the other 2 have a med collection due to drop December 2011. AAofA 2 years oldest account 4 years 2 months this a closed Walmart of mine that she was AU on. She has 4 of her own CC's and is AU on my Citi. Interestingly enuf this card is listed twice as open on her EQ. One is the credit limit a few CLI
s ago. Both are reporting as open one line actually really doesn't exist. Utilization with my limits included is 15% her's alone close to 90%. No inquiries no negatives. Score was 738.
Negatives were short history and heavy use of credit (15%).
Positives were no missed payments not seeking credit and one I found strange. You have limited your number of credit accounts at 4. FHA have an average of 5 credit accounts. Never saw that one before.
Now that is one bogus 738 if ya ask me.
@smallfry wrote:We pulled SO's EQ. It is now clean the other 2 have a med collection due to drop December 2011. AAofA 2 years oldest account 4 years 2 months this a closed Walmart of mine that she was AU on. She has 4 of her own CC's and is AU on my Citi. Interestingly enuf this card is listed twice as open on her EQ. One is the credit limit a few CLI
s ago. Both are reporting as open one line actually really doesn't exist. Utilization with my limits included is 15% her's alone close to 90%. No inquiries no negatives. Score was 738.
Negatives were short history and heavy use of credit (15%).
Positives were no missed payments not seeking credit and one I found strange. You have limited your number of credit accounts at 4. FHA have an average of 5 credit accounts. Never saw that one before.
Now that is one bogus 738 if ya ask me.
Limited number of credit accounts includes both open and closed. So lay off the application button.
4 out of 6 accounts reporting a balance.
Wow, the FICO scoring fairies must really like your SO!
I guess for someone with her short history profile, it's not so bad. I'd guess she'd get killed with longer history.
@haulingthescoreup wrote:Wow, the FICO scoring fairies must really like your SO!
I guess for someone with her short history profile, it's not so bad. I'd guess she'd get killed with longer history.
738 is pretty good for someone who has 3 cards close to 100% utilized the other well over 50%. Just shows the downside of using AU accounts in the scoring formula. It's not really fair.
@smallfry wrote:
738 is pretty good for someone who has 3 cards close to 100% utilized the other well over 50%. Just shows the downside of using AU accounts in the scoring formula. It's not really fair.
Unless of course the cards are paid from shared income. What does SO stand for?
My own little FICO grinder says 679 without AU and 738 with. Is that about right?
SO = significant other
This is the basis of the debate about whether AU accounts should be included. Many households have all the credit in one person's name, and the other is just an AU. But during those pillow talks that really control how expenses are paid, both parties have a voice. So IMO, I think it's entirely fair that AU cards that have legitimate family use should be scored. (At the same time, folks, get real: each person should have credit in his/ her own name.)
But it starts getting shaky when the relationship gets a bit more distant, and when it's out-and-out piggybacking (buying a stranger's credit history in order to improve your own score), it's completely indefensible on ethical grounds.
And BTW, in case anyone is interested in grabbing this topic and running, advocacy of piggybacking, with the above definition, is against the TOS of these forums and will result in having the post whisked away.
eta: cna't splel
I think when 2 people get together, as in SO or marriage, and if both parties are paying off the CC, then fairness or not shouldn't play a role.
For instance, when we got married, my DH already had a good credit history. There was no reason why he should be penalized to close his accounts, and open them with me as a Joint. It would be counter-productive. On the same note, it wouldn't make sense for me to apply for the same cards that he has (the ones that make sense for our household) as the cash back rewards, etc wouldn't add up on seperate accounts.
So yeah, you're right- it's not fair. But you also have the option of not adding your SO as an AU. Al if for any reason you decide to end the AU relationship, your SO scores would drop. So while being an AU can be helpful, the AU's score is also at the mercy of someone else.
In the end, I think both parties need to be independant of eachother when it comes to good credit as you never know what can happen.
@haulingthescoreup wrote:(At the same time, folks, get real: each person should have credit in his/ her own name.)
I agree. But that's independent of whether the household income is shared. Any AU regulation may not know though whether it is.
@ficonightmare wrote:
In the end, I think both parties need to be independant of eachother when it comes to good credit as you never know what can happen.
A prenup would likely lessen such a need.