What's more hurtful; High Utilization in CO or Recency of Delinquency

[Anonymous]

---

johnpalley wrote:
gordonbs, so what if i disputed a charge off account that stopped reporting in 2004. if that dispute caused the credit card company to report again with todays date would that cause my score to go down?

Message Edited by johnpalley on 08-10-2008 08:26 PM

---

If it's verfied, it will change the Date Reported. I went back and forth with a couple of accounts that came back verified before I finally got it through the OC that they were inaccurate. Every verify from CRA dispute caused a new Date Reported and EQ saw it as 'recent derog', even though it was listed on CR as Date Open or DOLA of 3 years ago.

EQ is quirky in this respect for me.

[fused]

---

johnpalley wrote:
a friend of mine just asked me a question about something that has to do with this thread. ok, so i just want to get this straight just so i can give him the correct advise. everyone in this thread is saying paying off a charge off is never going to make your credit score go down right? and most likely your score will improve?

Message Edited by johnpalley on 08-10-2008 07:26 PM

---

I would never say never. If I had a CO reporting an original limit of 5K and it's now reporting a balance of 6.5K, heck yeah I'm paying it. As far as I'm concerned, this would greatly reduce my revolving util on at least one account and it could only help my overall util. Many have reported not losing in points by paying a collection (which do not count in util), while others in the forums have paid CO's and were surprised their scores improved. Both are updating, so what's the difference...it's balances and util. The the CO's factors these in scoring, CAs never do.

[fused]

johnpalley wrote:
gordonbs, so what if i disputed a charge off account that stopped reporting in 2004. if that dispute caused the credit card company to report again with todays date would that cause my score to go down?

Message Edited by johnpalley on 08-10-2008 08:26 PM

 I would expect your scores to take a hit.

[johnpalley]

i dont understand why my score would take a hit if the date of first deliquincy and the balance remains the same. for the life of me i dont understand that.

[fused]

---

johnpalley wrote:
i dont understand why my score would take a hit if the date of first deliquincy and the balance remains the same. for the life of me i dont understand that.

---

I agree, it's freakin stupid! This seems to be a real issue especially with the EQ scoring model.

[Anonymous]

Fused, I settled it. I have a habit of saying "paid", but not PIF.

[fused]

reporting as settled will have a negative impact, but al least you'll have peace of mind

[Anonymous]

I thought settled and PIF were going to have the same impact at this point?

[fused]

---

ssstevie wrote:
I thought settled and PIF were going to have the same impact at this point?

---

read message #5 in this thread. This is why I stressed to PIF...it makes a huge differnce

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=ficoscoring&thread.id=25594&jump=true

[Anonymous]

---

@fused wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I thought settled and PIF were going to have the same impact at this point?

---

read message #5 in this thread. This is why I stressed to PIF...it makes a huge differnce

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=ficoscoring&thread.id=25594&jump=true

---

Right, this is the exact thread on which I was basing my assumption. Or, did I misunderstand your point? I thought you were trying to say that PIF and settled will have equal impact, and that it didn't matter which I chose, since I would benefit from the lower utilization. Am I missing something?