What determines "thickness" of file/report?

[codesingh]

Hey Folks,

I hear this a lot. I know it could be various entities that defines the how "thick" (strong) one's credit report or file is. Am I right?

Ok. Most importantly what I really want to know is what's the major element which plays a major role in determining one credit file?

Is it age of credit history? Is it the number of trade lines? Is it limits on the credit cards? anything other? Which one is the major player here?

~Code

[coldnmn]

IMHO all of those but I believe always paying on time and any negative factors play a huge part.

[enharu]

I think "thickness" mostly has to do with overall and average age of credit file. The number of accounts matter too, but having lots of new accounts on file is usually going to do more harm than good. However if you have lots of aged accounts on file, then that's obviously ideal.

[Anonymous]

---

@enharu wrote:
I think "thickness" mostly has to do with overall and average age of credit file. The number of accounts matter too, but having lots of new accounts on file is usually going to do more harm than good. However if you have lots of aged accounts on file, then that's obviously ideal.

---

+1, just like the image it invokes, a (paper!) file with lots of stuff in it, going back years.   As above, that's not enough, lots of new accounts won't be great and lots of old accounts with lates, COs etc, won't either, but it is mainly used in contrast to "thin" file, someone without much credit history at all, giving lenders little to evaluate.

[Smug]

Mine really thick in fact it split a few times

[Walt_K]

Agree that it generally refers to number of tradelines and age of accounts (I don't think limits play into it at all).  Basically, it's a question of how rich a data source you have.  Saying you have an absolutely clean report with perfect payment history means a lot more if you have managed 15 accounts for 20 years without any blemishes than it does for one account for three months.

[codesingh]

All - What you say is make sense. I still wanna share / ask question.

I kinda like to think that the debt and its payment in past can make one look like a better and less riskier candidate for an offer. Anybody else thing a record of debt paid off in past can make one look beter than the one who had no debt experience at all?

[Walt_K]

---

@codesingh wrote:

All - What you say is make sense. I still wanna share / ask question.

I kinda like to think that the debt and its payment in past can make one look like a better and less riskier candidate for an offer. Anybody else thing a record of debt paid off in past can make one look beter than the one who had no debt experience at all?

---

Do you mean something that went delinquent, or are you just referring to having credit history.

[codesingh]

@Walt_K wrote:

---

@codesingh wrote:

All - What you say, makes sense to me. I still wanna share / ask question.

I kinda like to think that the debt and its payment in past can make one look like a better and less riskier candidate for an offer or approval. Anybody else think a record of debt(any kind of debt, late etc) paid off in past can make one look beter than the one who had no debt experience at all?

---

Do you mean something that went delinquent, or are you just referring to having credit history.

---

Pardon my spelling at several places.
In short, having a history of debt in past(not any debt now, at least not within the past 8 years) vs not having a history of debt in past at all.

For example, when I invest in some stock/option if I see that a company went down but came back up, I seem to trust on that one more than a hip-new company, twtr for e.g., which looks all shiney but all new.

[Walt_K]

---

@codesingh wrote:

@Walt_K wrote:

---

@codesingh wrote:

All - What you say, makes sense to me. I still wanna share / ask question.

I kinda like to think that the debt and its payment in past can make one look like a better and less riskier candidate for an offer or approval. Anybody else think a record of debt(any kind of debt, late etc) paid off in past can make one look beter than the one who had no debt experience at all?

---

Do you mean something that went delinquent, or are you just referring to having credit history.

---

Pardon my spelling at several places.
In short, having a history of debt in past(not any debt now, at least not within the past 8 years) vs not having a history of debt in past at all.

For example, when I invest in some stock/option if I see that a company went down but came back up, I seem to trust on that one more than a hip-new company, twtr for e.g., which looks all shiney but all new.

---

Right, but I'm not clear what you mean by having gone down in the past.  If you mean having a collection or a period of late payments, but then paying it off, then no, I don't think lenders look at that in a positive light.  The damage fades as time goes by, and having paid it is better than not having paid it, but they would much prefer to see that you have maintained your accounts without ever having paid late.

If you are simply asking whether they want to see history rather than no history with credit, then yes.