No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@audio-disabled wrote:Goldman Sachs pulled TransUnion with a score of 680. The one and only reason it was denied was because: You have recently been past due
Vantage 3.0 is 651 as of 8/8/2019
FICO8 is 645 as of 8/2/2019
FICO9 is 676 as of 7/18/2019
I am confused by the above. If "Goldman Sachs pulled TransUnion with a score of 680. " what is the FICO8 score you listed below it?
@BallBounces wrote:
@audio-disabled wrote:Goldman Sachs pulled TransUnion with a score of 680. The one and only reason it was denied was because: You have recently been past due
Vantage 3.0 is 651 as of 8/8/2019
FICO8 is 645 as of 8/2/2019
FICO9 is 676 as of 7/18/2019
I am confused by the above. If "Goldman Sachs pulled TransUnion with a score of 680. " what is the FICO8 score you listed below it?
I know right, in the email I got it tells me I have 680, the closest score to 680 I have is 676 FICO9 as of 7/18. All the scores listed above is TransUnion.
@audio-disabled wrote:
@BallBounces wrote:
@audio-disabled wrote:Goldman Sachs pulled TransUnion with a score of 680. The one and only reason it was denied was because: You have recently been past due
Vantage 3.0 is 651 as of 8/8/2019
FICO8 is 645 as of 8/2/2019
FICO9 is 676 as of 7/18/2019
I am confused by the above. If "Goldman Sachs pulled TransUnion with a score of 680. " what is the FICO8 score you listed below it?
I know right, in the email I got it tells me I have 680, the closest score to 680 I have is 676 FICO9 as of 7/18. All the scores listed above is TransUnion.
If they used F9, the last time you pulled it was 7/18 so it isn't unrealistic to pick up 4 points almost a month later.
@Anonymous wrote:
If they used F9, the last time you pulled it was 7/18 so it isn't unrealistic to pick up 4 points almost a month later.
I'm thinking exactly that, but I don't want to hold my breath, ha.
I have just read elsewhere that the supposition is that it is indeed FICO9 that they are using.
@AverageJoesCredit wrote:
Relating a 2 year old bk7 as just, " only baddie" isnt the best way to view it. Thats a pretty significsnt reason , and relatively recent bk that can still have repercussions with apps for years to come. Just remember lenders can put up a variety of reasons for denial when in fact its that bk that they dont like.
Understandable. At this point, we don't know exactly what Goldman like or don't like. I do feel it's worth it sharing here.
I called the number, 877-255-5923, the line went to Apple support then went through two transfers to discuss my application. I spoke with a superviser and he is in Goldman Sachs. This is NOT a recon line, but he said he can see more details but unable to share with me because he is not a credit analyst. But for my situation where the reason for denial reading "recent past dues" is inaccurate, so the superviser will escalate my request in hopes to provide more explanation.
He tried to pad the reason for rejection when explaining to me the list of contributing factors to my scores like severe delinquent or derogatory (BK), but I argue that this is what contributes to my scores. If we focus on the reason itself on the rejection - past dues - which is inaccurate, it should be reconsidered or looked into.
Also, I was able to confirm that if you apply, it will be soft pull. Upon accepting the approval, it becomes a hard pull. As per the supervisor.
@audio-disabled wrote:
@AverageJoesCredit wrote:
Relating a 2 year old bk7 as just, " only baddie" isnt the best way to view it. Thats a pretty significsnt reason , and relatively recent bk that can still have repercussions with apps for years to come. Just remember lenders can put up a variety of reasons for denial when in fact its that bk that they dont like.Understandable. At this point, we don't know exactly what Goldman like or don't like. I do feel it's worth it sharing here.
I called the number, 877-255-5923, the line went to Apple support then went through two transfers to discuss my application. I spoke with a superviser and he is in Goldman Sachs. This is NOT a recon line, but he said he can see more details but unable to share with me because he is not a credit analyst. But for my situation where the reason for denial reading "recent past dues" is inaccurate, so the superviser will escalate my request in hopes to provide more explanation.
He tried to pad the reason for rejection when explaining to me the list of contributing factors to my scores like severe delinquent or derogatory (BK), but I argue that this is what contributes to my scores. If we focus on the reason itself on the rejection - past dues - which is inaccurate, it should be reconsidered or looked into.
Also, I was able to confirm that if you apply, it will be soft pull. Upon accepting the approval, it becomes a hard pull. As per the supervisor.
How could a two year old BK NOT BE VIEWED as a RECENT PAST DUE ????
A BK is the most severe modifer in the game. You are not going to win this IMO. Sorry