@Ghoshida wrote:
@SunriseEarth wrote:Upon review, certain comments have been edited or removed from this thread, as they were off-topic and didn't fall within our FSR guidelines. All discussion on this forum must be Friendly, Supportive, and Respectful. Differences of opinion are welcome, but must be expressed respectfully. If you don't agree with or don't want to hear someone's opinion, simply don't respond.
I should also note that this thread includes ideas that many would not consider to be sound financial advice. Discussion should be "informational only" and doesn't constitute recommendation of ideas in the thread.
Ok I was guessing y'day where did the thread go.
First there was a lockdown on comments and then the thread was missing for some time. So was it because of people not playing nice in this thread?
To be clear, OP isn't violating the T&C of the forum with this question; correct me if I'm wrong. BTs are well within guidelines
Couldn't figure what was so wrong with this thread.
OP is (I presume) a grown-up who's asked us some questions. I believe it's against the decorum of this forum to question OP's intentions or demand justification. However, being friendly internet-users (yes, oxymoron) that we are, I think I'll conclude my posts on this thread with a word of caution:
1) Banks may take adverse action (such as credit limit decrease or account closure) if multiple high-volume BTs show up at the same time
2) Investments by nature are volatile; the days of taking a BT and gaining 5-6% in CD are behind us. Keep in mind that there's an inherent risk of losing part or all of it, even in a short period.
Correct. The thread was locked and temporarily removed for review and editing. This was solely due to a heated exchange and not the subject matter of BTs. Since the OP seems sincere in wanting information regarding his idea, the thread was reinstated.
@johnpalley wrote:
.....
equifax - 801
transunion - 795
experian - 657
can you freaking believe this crap!
.....
Hi John,
Thanks for asking my advice; I'm not an expert around here and I'm sure others have much better experience and insight to offer. I'll say what I think here:
(1) Throw everything at that charge off and get it off the report. You can get much information here using the rebuilder sub-forum as well as other credit forums on the net. Also, get a copy of all 3 reports from annualcreditreport.com if you haven't done already and make sure that's the only difference between EX, and TU / EQ. I'd try to get everything streamlined ASAP.
You've otherwise got near-stellar credit and should not be at a disadvantage for one mistake for which you've already paid.
(2) In an ideal scenario, I'd say hold on before applying. But I'm trying to be realistic here and everything's not ideal always.
From what I understand, Barclays will pull TU. Discover mostly pulls TU, sometimes EQ (they wanted EQ for It Miles and won't use TU).
Citi will mostly pull EQ, sometimes EX.
Chase mostly EX, sometimes EQ and / or TU for a double pull. AMEX will hunt you with EX 
This is my experience and from what I recall on these boards. Credit pulls database has more extensive info. Dunno USAA or BofA.
You're right; banks who are sending you their best rates are doing it based on non-EX reports. It's likely that they will use those reports to make the final decision as well. With your TU and EQ scores, you're set to get best rates, unless something else like income becomes an issue.
There's a way to prevent lenders to pull a specific report. It is frowned upon on this community to explicitly discuss the process, but you can Google it
If a lender uses that bureau primarily, it will not help. But it may help in case of other lenders from accidentally also pulling that one.
Therefore, set up your reports properly Then apply for the lenders who primarily use non-EX reports (as mentioned above and you also know).
With your scores (and proper income), you should get your goal with maybe 3 cards so you won't need 6-7 cards. Best of luck.