@thornback wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Yeah we have, haha. I heard about Discover (I'm really sorry about that). No worries, I'll be here!
Thanks -- it happens. Nothing is guaranteed in the credit world. I understand.
Anyway.... you said you were waiting for a response from me... to what am I responding? Looks like @ImTheDevil answered your other posts masterfully... did I miss something (besides the Q about the age of lates and successfull Goodwills)?
Wasn't really waiting for a response per se, just wanted your opinion and input on the discussion to see if you have had any additional comments to add based on your knowledge or personal experience with this.
@Anonymous wrote:Wasn't really waiting for a response per se, just wanted your opinion and input on the discussion to see if you have had any additional comments to add based on your knowledge or personal experience with this.
Got it. No, I actually don't have anything to add on the topics discussed (TheDevil pretty much covered it - unless you have additional Qs?). Only other thing I will say is to remember that you'll be losing some older accounts - so the loss in age could temper your point gains and you may not see the types of increases anticipated from derog removal. Focus on the goal of having clean reports - not the potential score increases.
@Anonymous wrote:As to your consecutive lates, I think it’s a hit or miss in a way. I’ve heard of people saying that once a late hits the exclusion age, it and any consecutive subsequent lates fall off as a string. I’ve also heard talk of them falling off one at a time, so that as one comes of exclusion age, it falls away, and the next month the next one falls off, and so forth. I don’t know if certain circumstances dictate which way it works (ie, if it’s a closed in good standing account, they go off as a string, but on a chargeoff they’re one at a time) or if it’s a quirk particular to each bureaus (such as EX deletes a string but EQ deletes per month). I wish I knew the answer but hopefully when @thornback comes back she will have the answer.
I believe this is a bureau thing, from what I've seen. And, if I recall correctly, it was Experian that likes to remove lates month by month while TU & EQ remove strings.
@thornback wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:As to your consecutive lates, I think it’s a hit or miss in a way. I’ve heard of people saying that once a late hits the exclusion age, it and any consecutive subsequent lates fall off as a string. I’ve also heard talk of them falling off one at a time, so that as one comes of exclusion age, it falls away, and the next month the next one falls off, and so forth. I don’t know if certain circumstances dictate which way it works (ie, if it’s a closed in good standing account, they go off as a string, but on a chargeoff they’re one at a time) or if it’s a quirk particular to each bureaus (such as EX deletes a string but EQ deletes per month). I wish I knew the answer but hopefully when @thornback comes back she will have the answer.
I believe this is a bureau thing, from what I've seen. And, if I recall correctly, it was Experian that likes to remove lates month by month while TU & EQ remove strings.
I knew I saw a very recent thread on this topic --- I just had to find it. And I stand corrected as to which bureau does what...
From this post (based on poster's recent experience): https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Aging-Delinquencies/m-p/5829291
- 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.
There's more to the post that you may find interesting... but the above is the gist.
@thornback wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:As to your consecutive lates, I think it’s a hit or miss in a way. I’ve heard of people saying that once a late hits the exclusion age, it and any consecutive subsequent lates fall off as a string. I’ve also heard talk of them falling off one at a time, so that as one comes of exclusion age, it falls away, and the next month the next one falls off, and so forth. I don’t know if certain circumstances dictate which way it works (ie, if it’s a closed in good standing account, they go off as a string, but on a chargeoff they’re one at a time) or if it’s a quirk particular to each bureaus (such as EX deletes a string but EQ deletes per month). I wish I knew the answer but hopefully when @thornback comes back she will have the answer.
I believe this is a bureau thing, from what I've seen. And, if I recall correctly, it was Experian that likes to remove lates month by month while TU & EQ remove strings.
Gotcha!! I'll start by sending out the GW letters and hopefully they'll be successful. Is it okay if you and @ImTheDevil help me with the letters? Of course, I'll put all the work in and write up the letter — but if both of you or even one of you would give me your feedback and tell me what you think when it's done and ready to be mailed? Worst comes to worst and the GW letters aren't successful, I'll come back and get your advice on what you think my next course of action should be. 
@thornback wrote:
@thornback wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:As to your consecutive lates, I think it’s a hit or miss in a way. I’ve heard of people saying that once a late hits the exclusion age, it and any consecutive subsequent lates fall off as a string. I’ve also heard talk of them falling off one at a time, so that as one comes of exclusion age, it falls away, and the next month the next one falls off, and so forth. I don’t know if certain circumstances dictate which way it works (ie, if it’s a closed in good standing account, they go off as a string, but on a chargeoff they’re one at a time) or if it’s a quirk particular to each bureaus (such as EX deletes a string but EQ deletes per month). I wish I knew the answer but hopefully when @thornback comes back she will have the answer.
I believe this is a bureau thing, from what I've seen. And, if I recall correctly, it was Experian that likes to remove lates month by month while TU & EQ remove strings.
I knew I saw a very recent thread on this topic --- I just had to find it. And I stand corrected as to which bureau does what...
From this post (based on poster's recent experience): https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Aging-Delinquencies/m-p/5829291
- 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.
There's more to the post that you may find interesting... but the above is the gist.
THANK YOU!!!! Keeping this for the future because I'm no where near to having them deleted. I have to wait until 2024 
@Anonymous wrote:Gotcha!! I'll start by sending out the GW letters and hopefully they'll be successful. Is it okay if you and @ImTheDevil help me with the letters? Of course, I'll put all the work in and write up the letter — but if both of you or even one of you would give me your feedback and tell me what you think when it's done and ready to be mailed? Worst comes to worst and the GW letters aren't successful, I'll come back and get your advice on what you think my next course of action should be.
Yes, I'll be happy to look them over before you send them out. But there's no such thing as Goodwill failures until you literally reach the point of the negative dropping off on its own at it's 7 year mark. Goodwills don't usually (almost never) work after the first letter sent.... it often takes multiple letters and multiple rounds of sending letters over a period of time before you finally get what you want -- the key is not to give up.
I believe somewhere in this thread I posted 2 goodwill links for you... one link brought you to Goodwill example letters and the other to an explanation of the Goodwill Saturation Technique (or I may be confusing this thread with another but I know I posted those links somewhere recently!) Anyway - I highly recommend reading through both before you get started on your letters.
Found them -- post #28
For goodwill examples (old, but always valid, thread): https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/GW-Example-Letters/m-p/4521
For the best goodwill technique: https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/The-Saturation-Technique-Best-GW-adjustment-...
@thornback wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Gotcha!! I'll start by sending out the GW letters and hopefully they'll be successful. Is it okay if you and @ImTheDevil help me with the letters? Of course, I'll put all the work in and write up the letter — but if both of you or even one of you would give me your feedback and tell me what you think when it's done and ready to be mailed? Worst comes to worst and the GW letters aren't successful, I'll come back and get your advice on what you think my next course of action should be.
Yes, I'll be happy to look them over before you send them out. But there's no such thing as Goodwill failures until you literally reach the point of the negative dropping off on its own at it's 7 year mark. Goodwills don't usually (almost never) work after the first letter sent.... it often takes multiple letters and multiple rounds of sending letters over a period of time before you finally get what you want -- the key is not to give up.
Awww, yay!! I guess I meant like after 6 mon-1 year of denials and not getting anywhere, I figured that people would move on and try to rebuild their score some other way if they're not able to get the lates removed.
I believe somewhere in this thread I posted 2 goodwill links for you... one link brought you to Goodwill example letters and the other to an explanation of the Goodwill Saturation Technique (or I may be confusing this thread with another but I know I posted those links somewhere recently!) Anyway - I highly recommend reading through both before you get started on your letters.
You did!!
@Anonymous wrote:
@thornback wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Gotcha!! I'll start by sending out the GW letters and hopefully they'll be successful. Is it okay if you and @ImTheDevil help me with the letters? Of course, I'll put all the work in and write up the letter — but if both of you or even one of you would give me your feedback and tell me what you think when it's done and ready to be mailed? Worst comes to worst and the GW letters aren't successful, I'll come back and get your advice on what you think my next course of action should be.
Yes, I'll be happy to look them over before you send them out. But there's no such thing as Goodwill failures until you literally reach the point of the negative dropping off on its own at it's 7 year mark. Goodwills don't usually (almost never) work after the first letter sent.... it often takes multiple letters and multiple rounds of sending letters over a period of time before you finally get what you want -- the key is not to give up.
Awww, yay!! I guess I meant like after 6 mon-1 year of denials and not getting anywhere, I figured that people would move on and try to rebuild their score some other way if they're not able to get the lates removed.
Eh... depends on the person and how bad they want it gone. I had a paid charge-off on my reports and wanted it gone (my last derog)-- it took me a year and 6 months of letters (and nasty denial responses) before I was successful. Had I given up after I hit the one year mark... that charge-off would stll be there... ijs.