2013 Blacklist Thread

[Shogun]

Paid them off directly.  Scores were high 700s to 800s.  Income 6 figures +

[TiggerDat]

I defaulted back in 1990 or so with Citi and never paid them back.  I applied this year and they did not deny me.  They asked for verification of my income, which I did not want to go through all the trouble to provide to them, so I did not get the card.  It would have been too much of a hassle to go through all this work to get the card since I had just gotten FNBO, Amex, PNC, and Capone. 

I probably would have gotten the card if I had went through the trouble, but it was just a little too much trouble.

[enharu]

---

@phillyguy12 wrote:

---

@blondy250 wrote:
If you burned Citi or Chase, why shouldn't they blacklist you. You didn't pay what you owed, for whatever reason. You represent a risk there not willing to take a chance on, totally understandable.

---

yes and no people fall behind and dont pay some do it willingly other have limited options  due to circumstance beyond their control ie unexpected medical costs or job loss and some just flat out use credit to live beyond their means.  if you burn a comany once that shouldn't be automatic lifetime denial- how could one rebuild credit if this were the case, this is the reason why negative infomation does not stay on your CR indefinitely.  some people like myself learn the hardway credit is a tool and needs to used wisely not as way to live beyond your means. yes i didn't pay what was owed directly to them but they sold the debt off so they got something, and i eventaully did fulfill my obligation and paid the debt off in full. if all companies black listed, people would be forced to deal w/ the likes of 1st permier forever and we would really be in trouble then......

---

bad debt are sold to collection agencies for pennies on each dollar.

For example if you owed 10k, that lender got maybe 100-500 dollars at the very most. Sure, they did get something like you said, but at the same time they were denied of hundreds / thousands of dollars that were rightfully theirs if the default had never occurred.

That being said, I do agree that there are cases where people intentionally burn creditors by exploiting loopholes in the laws, while some simply are forced to. However, most lenders do not care. To them its strictly statistics and risk. An understanding underwriter / manager might be able to overwrite the decision depending on your story, if they even have the authority to do so in the first place, but the system isn't programmed to do so. Most people are going to switch their stories to some sob soap opera as well just to "abuse" this method of getting back in with the lender, which is why most lenders rather not have anything to do with this altogether.

[lithium78]

---

@blondy250 wrote:
If you burned Citi or Chase, why shouldn't they blacklist you. You didn't pay what you owed, for whatever reason. You represent a risk there not willing to take a chance on, totally understandable.

---

I'm not denying responsibility for my actions, even though I was young and ignorant about personal finance.  I still think it's foolish policy for a company to completely reject somebody decades later for mistakes they made when they were a teenager, especially since it is extremely easy to see their current credit status with other companies.  Whatever.  There are plenty of fish in the sea and I don't need CCs from Citi and Chase to live a happy, successful life using credit.

[phillyguy12]

i get what you are saying enharu but their is also tax benifits for the CC company to write off those losses, CC companys are partly at fault too, while credit is still tight these days, not that long ago it was easy for anyone to get credit when i was in college with little to no real income they were throwing 2500+ inital CLs around like nothing and kept tossing in CLI's by time i was 23 i had an 8100 line w/ citi and little income,  i know i am not alone in this situation me and friends ended up with thousands in cc and student loan debt.  people screw up and learn from their mistakes. if companys cant see that their loss.  I love that they use the line due to past neg experience, yet when you look at invesments there is always that tag line "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results" the companies can throw that out there when they want you to lend them money but the reverse is clearly not ture

[blondy250]

---

@enharu wrote:

---

@phillyguy12 wrote:

---

@blondy250 wrote:
If you burned Citi or Chase, why shouldn't they blacklist you. You didn't pay what you owed, for whatever reason. You represent a risk there not willing to take a chance on, totally understandable.

---

yes and no people fall behind and dont pay some do it willingly other have limited options  due to circumstance beyond their control ie unexpected medical costs or job loss and some just flat out use credit to live beyond their means.  if you burn a comany once that shouldn't be automatic lifetime denial- how could one rebuild credit if this were the case, this is the reason why negative infomation does not stay on your CR indefinitely.  some people like myself learn the hardway credit is a tool and needs to used wisely not as way to live beyond your means. yes i didn't pay what was owed directly to them but they sold the debt off so they got something, and i eventaully did fulfill my obligation and paid the debt off in full. if all companies black listed, people would be forced to deal w/ the likes of 1st permier forever and we would really be in trouble then......

---

bad debt are sold to collection agencies for pennies on each dollar.

For example if you owed 10k, that lender got maybe 100-500 dollars at the very most. Sure, they did get something like you said, but at the same time they were denied of hundreds / thousands of dollars that were rightfully theirs if the default had never occurred.

That being said, I do agree that there are cases where people intentionally burn creditors by exploiting loopholes in the laws, while some simply are forced to. However, most lenders do not care. To them its strictly statistics and risk. An understanding underwriter / manager might be able to overwrite the decision depending on your story, if they even have the authority to do so in the first place, but the system isn't programmed to do so. Most people are going to switch their stories to some sob soap opera as well just to "abuse" this method of getting back in with the lender, which is why most lenders rather not have anything to do with this altogether.

---

I agree, and I also understand that unforeseeable things happen to good people. However I believe in personal responsibility and find in my own live experience it comes down to people living beyond there means, and trying to keep up with the "Joneses" , and then trying to walk away from there obligation and expecting no repercussions. If you fall behind for some of the reasons Phillyguy stated and you work hard and pay back what you owe, I 100% believe in 2nd chances. However the CC companies no the statistics on debt recidivism, and thats why some don't like giving 2nd chances.

[sjt]

@blondy250 wrote:

---

I agree, and I also understand that unforeseeable things happen to good people. However I believe in personal responsibility and find in my own live experience it comes down to people living beyond there means, and trying to keep up with the "Joneses" , and then trying to walk away from there obligation and expecting no repercussions. If you fall behind for some of the reasons Phillyguy stated and you work hard and pay back what you owe, I 100% believe in 2nd chances. However the CC companies no the statistics on debt recidivism, and thats why some don't like giving 2nd chances.

---

I agree that lenders have a right to blacklist you if you burned them, but I do think they should let you back in if you pay them off and of course meet their credit criteria.

I think there are many reasons why people have been or currently in the credit rebuilding stages. My opinion is the reason they got into the situation is not imporant as much as what they learned from it and how they currently manage their financial situation.

I have been told that people who have gone through credit rebuilding are less likely to default a second time around.

[enharu]

---

@sjt wrote:

I agree that lenders have a right to blacklist you if you burned them, but I do think they should let you back in if you pay them off and of course meet their credit criteria.

I think there are many reasons why people have been or currently in the credit rebuilding stages. My opinion is the reason they got into the situation is not imporant as much as what they learned from it and how they currently manage their financial situation.

I have been told that people who have gone through credit rebuilding are less likely to default a second time around.

---

You can pay them off. They can't ask you for it directly if you filed BK or if it's past SOL, but you can volunteer to pay it off. Granted, you will never be paying them in "full" because they still lost money on those interests and inflation. Paying lenders off usually the best way to get off the blacklist, with time being the 2nd best solution.

Based on statistics, people who have filed BK are more likely to file one again in the future. Not too sure about bad debt or collections; haven't really read anything on that.

---

@lithium78 wrote:

---

@blondy250 wrote:
If you burned Citi or Chase, why shouldn't they blacklist you. You didn't pay what you owed, for whatever reason. You represent a risk there not willing to take a chance on, totally understandable.

---

I'm not denying responsibility for my actions, even though I was young and ignorant about personal finance.  I still think it's foolish policy for a company to completely reject somebody decades later for mistakes they made when they were a teenager, especially since it is extremely easy to see their current credit status with other companies.  Whatever.  There are plenty of fish in the sea and I don't need CCs from Citi and Chase to live a happy, successful life using credit.

---

It's foolish in a way, but at the same time it's a "safe" bet for them. You may be a successful professional at the latter part of the career, but there's still no doubt they had been burned before. They're basing it on the fact that because you had burned them before, you are more likely to do so in the future if you're ever caught in a situation again. Like you said, you're not really losing out much. Many other lenders, such as American Express, offers very competitive products. You could always try again in the future, and if they still don't want you, so be it.

---

@phillyguy12 wrote:

i get what you are saying @enharu but their is also tax benifits for the CC company to write off those losses, CC companys are partly at fault too, while credit is still tight these days, not that long ago it was easy for anyone to get credit when i was in college with little to no real income they were throwing 2500+ inital CLs around like nothing and kept tossing in CLI's by time i was 23 i had an 8100 line w/ citi and little income,  i know i am not alone in this situation me and friends ended up with thousands in cc and student loan debt.  people screw up and learn from their mistakes. if companys cant see that their loss.  I love that they use the line due to past neg experience, yet when you look at invesments there is always that tag line "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results" the companies can throw that out there when they want you to lend them money but the reverse is clearly not ture

---

The problem they have isn't exactly with you.

The situation lenders are in is that there are many other people seeking credit as well, including those who just turned 18. Therefore some of them very much rather approval other individuals than to "bet" on you again. Not everyone who made these mistakes will repeat them, but there are people, even if it may be a minority, doing this which is enough to deter the lender(s) away. 

[Open123]

---

@lithium78 wrote: I still think it's foolish policy for a company to completely reject somebody decades later for mistakes they made when they were a teenager, especially since it is extremely easy to see their current credit status with other companies.  

---

Issuers whose revenue are adversely affected because of the above will change their criteria.  This is a case where the market's invisible hand will set the issuer's policies, since it's the only metric that will drive a company to change.

[totallymytravis]

If you have completely burned a bank and now have rebuilt your credit to a level to be approved, I feel that you are least likely to burn them again. I defaulted on 7 cards in 2005. The mess I've had to work through with credit the past 7 years has been hell and I will never default ever again. That being said I'm not about to pull out a check for the 15-20k I would owe w/ interest by now for debt way out of the SOL. I've been blacklisted by discover, citi, BoA, and chase. Cap1 has allowed me back (w/ several accounts, GE the same, and Target recently gave me an account this year w/ a $300 limit. I have had accts for a few yrs that I did not burn w/ AMEX & some store accts. I see both sides here. But I think after many years of good history, banks are making a mistake in blacklisting people who have learned their lesson.