topic Re: Aging Delinquencies in Understanding FICO® Scoring

Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Sat, 09 May 2020 19:36:08 GMT

2020/1/1 UPDATE:

This month offers the clearest evidence to date of how the major CBs remove delinquencies in absence of a request for EE.

EQ: Deletes delinquencies three months in advance, but does not delete strings. Delinquencies from April 2013 on three accounts were removed. Strings were not deleted, so delinquencies from May onward remain. CR will be clean in June.
EX: Deletes strings two months in advance. String of delinquencies on one account beginning March 2013 was removed. Delinquencies on other accounts from April 2013 remain. I expect this CR to be clean in February. Looking forward to it.
TU: Deletes delinquencies one month in advance, but does not delete strings. Delinquencies from February 2013 on three accounts were removed. Strings were not deleted, so delinquencies from March onward remain. CR will be clean in August.

Updated in thread below as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a trail of major delinquencies from 2012-2013 on four accounts that are now falling off my reports. The last delinquency is dated Sept 2013. Most of the delinquencies are reported identically across the three CBs, but the CBs clearly have different policies regarding the removal/aging of delinquencies. I'm pulling reports from Experian/CCT. As far as I can tell:

EX is deleting 2 months early and they seem relatively liberal with how they delete. They appear to delete strings and successive non-string lates (e.g. 30 day delinqs on the same account in successive months). Plus, when deleting strings or successive lates, they delete delinqs on other accounts for those same months. This last point is based on an N=1 right now, but I'll have more DPs in the next few months.
EQ is deleting 3 months early but they are not deleting strings or successive delinqs (e.g. this month EQ removed a 30 day delinq from Mar 2013 but not the 60 day delinq on the same account for April 2013).
TU is deleting 2 months early. I don't know how they treat strings, yet, but they're not deleting successive delinqs on the same account.

These patterns are not what I expected from what I read, so I thought this may be of interest to others (I also posted on the monthly myFico Challenge thread). My intention is to let these delinqs age off au naturel, without EE, but I'm nonetheless anxious to see them go.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:27:42 GMT

Thanks for sharing! This is something I was wondering about since my oldest will be in this postion soon.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:49:51 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for sharing! This is something I was wondering about since my oldest will be in this postion soon.

Glad it's helpful. Let me know if you want more info/clarification.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Trudy — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 04:54:31 GMT

I often wonder if what we "think" we know about how early each bureau may remove something is changing.... possibly because of our forum input that a Google search could easily find??. Whether they changed their policy for whatever reason or not the fact is that it may be removed, not that it will.

In the last 3 years, Ive not had my remaining lates removed based on what we thing we know as TU 6 months early, EX 3 months early or EQ 1 month early. My last lates over those years never matched up with that while others had threads where it indeed happened. Nor has one bureau been consistently sooner than the other for me. 1 late was removed nearly 11 months early on TU but another with TU wasn't removed until one month before. Other differences with the other bureaus. My last 30 day was sitting on EX mid September set to expire in December but was removed 11 months early on TU (1/19) and 4 months early (8/19) on EQ. In September I was getting antsy about having a clean file and called a few times to request an EE with EX but was denied. However, it was removed unexpectedly in late October.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

OmarGB9 — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 05:00:51 GMT

Thanks for the DPs.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Dec 2019 23:38:12 GMT

Are y’all calculating from the DOFD?

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 02:14:29 GMT

DOFD isn't listed for any of the accounts, which is part of what made it difficult to determine when these delinqs would age. From conversations here, I was expecting accounts to age off from the 7 yr anniversary of DOFD as calculated backwards from the info given (e.g. if the first delinq reported is 60 days in March, then DOFD is in Jan), but that doesn't seem to be how the CBs are removing the delinqs (e.g. a 60 day in March is removed at the same time as a 30 day in March on another account).

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 04:00:26 GMT

I'm not studied on that. Maybe a more experienced member will chime in.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Wed, 01 Jan 2020 16:36:39 GMT

2020/1/1 UPDATE:

- EQ: Delinquencies from April 2013 on three accounts were removed. Strings were not deleted, so delinquencies from May onward remain.

- TU: Delinquencies from February 2013 on three accounts were removed. Strings were not deleted, so delinquencies from March onward remain.

- EX: String of delinquencies on one account beginning March 2013 was removed. Delinquencies on other accounts from April 2013 remain.

Will update OP as well.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 04:03:52 GMT

@VanderSnoot Congratulations!!

When the rest of those delinquencies fall off, you'll realize significant gains, as well.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

sparky2star — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 07:21:45 GMT

Great thread! What do you mean "strings"? Delete strings that is...

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 08:25:20 GMT

Strings are repeated lates, successively, e.g., say your first late was June and you became current in November. Your "string" would include from June to October, a 5 month string!

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:58:31 GMT

Birdman is correct. I'll just add that the following example is also a string: even though payments were made during this time, the account was never brought current, so all of these delinquencies belong to the same string.

March 2013 - 30 day late

April 2013 - 60 day late

May 2013 - 30 day late

June 2013 - 60 day late

July 2013 - current

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Remedios — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 14:19:52 GMT

Times given for EE on all three are correct.
EQ - one month early, dont mess with EQ
EX - three months early, it can go either way
TU - six month, they may even get it right

However, it's important to note that's when you can request removal, not when they would be removed if one did not interfere with the house cleaning process

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:04:33 GMT

@Remedios wrote:
Times given for EE on all three are correct.
EQ - one month early, dont mess with EQ
EX - three months early, it can go either way
TU - six month, they may even get it right

However, it's important to note that's when you can request removal, not when they would be removed if one did not interfere with the house cleaning process

This thread is about the house cleaning process, not EE (although the closer I get to clean CRs, the more tempting it becomes to call TU and ask).

Re: Aging Delinquencies

Remedios — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 13:39:17 GMT

@VanderSnoot I'm well aware what this thread is about.

If you go back to page one, Trudy is referencing EE times based on consumer requests as "something we know that might have changed" but times given were for consumer requests, not the actual time house cleaning may happen.

I'm not aware of any set times, other than being removed prior to 7.5 years. The only difference I see here is EX not removing string of delinquencies when oldest one (30 day) reaches "maturity", but instead having individual lates fall off.

Anyway, congrats on removals

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 23:48:33 GMT

I was wondering if you were replying to that post. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

sparky2star — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 06:50:39 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Strings are repeated lates, successively, e.g., say your first late was June and you became current in November. Your "string" would include from June to October, a 5 month string!

Thanks for clarifying!

Re: Aging Delinquencies

sparky2star — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 06:51:25 GMT

@VanderSnoot wrote:
Birdman is correct. I'll just add that the following example is also a string: even though payments were made during this time, the account was never brought current, so all of these delinquencies belong to the same string.

March 2013 - 30 day late
April 2013 - 60 day late
May 2013 - 30 day late
June 2013 - 60 day late
July 2013 - current

Thanks Vandersnoot.

Re: Aging Delinquencies

VanderSnoot — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 11:39:26 GMT

Just taking a look at the timing between deletion and requesting EE. For EX, requesting EE cleans your reports 1 month before EX would have deleted the strings anyway, so there's a small gain. The biggest bang is with TU, since you can request EE 5 months ahead of deletion and remove the whole string, which waiting for deletion does not accomplish (particularly helpful if you have a long string). TU also has the best track record of getting EE right.

But I'm confused about EQ. If they're deleting delinquencies on their own 3 months early, then they're long gone by the time EE is available (1 month early).

	Deletion	EE
Equifax	3 months	1 month
Experian	2 months	3 months
Transunion	1 month	6 months