Did they remove the CO???

[Dmessina666]

Much appreciated Robert, thanks for that explanation.  I started receiving "Improved account" alerts from numerous monitoring sites, and when I got it from Experian, I said let me look into this.

Deletion date is set for 2/2023.  I lcuked out with EQ, since they just removed it.  I can live with it for another 2 years or so.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

I had a webbank/fungerhut account and I had a CRA try and "fix" it (aapparently by blasting it with disputes) and it totally messed up the reporting. Instead of it falling off at the 7 years after DoFD, it is now a "paid as agreed" account and sticking around until at least 10 years after the last "update". I steer clear from disputing after the CRA made a huge mess of several of my accounts. They all should have dropped off years ago! Now I have a few years left to wait, but thankfull at this point they "look" like positive accounts since all of the lates have aged off and has the "paid as agreed" annotation.

Any way, it does not look like it was removed. I had the same thing, gone off 1 or 2 of the 3Bs, but not all. Found out any additional efforts made it worse each time. They won't doing somethung just because another bureau did.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

---

@Dmessina666 wrote:

I'm sorry, i didn't explain that correctly. It was reporting monthly CO all the way thru 12/2019. They were reporting negative info after it was PIF 6/2019. 

I disputed so they would correct that, and make it so the last CO reported 6/2019 like it should have. Before the dispute, it was reported CO in the history every month since 11/2016 when it was initially charged off. 

---

@Dmessina666 I'm not quite sure you understand and I have a couple questions too, if you would oblige.

How many days late you are is not calculated from the payment history graph that you're looking at that you had the COs removed from. True enough it looks better for somebody looking at it from a manual review perspective. But the algorithm calculates from the DOFD to the date it is paid to get TPOD (total period of delinquency).

So the algorithm knows exactly how many days you were late regardless of the graph. That's what @RobertEG was telling us I believe.

I believe the reason your score was not dinged for an update is because it was already marked paid (with date) and since the algorithm knows when it was paid, it knows the TPOD. Your dispute may have change the last date of update, but it did not change your TPOD.

So in reality you were about three years late. That would be your TPOD, however many days that is. And because that did not change (it became frozen at the time it was PIF) as a result of updating, your score did not change.

Now had it been unpaid and not regularly updating, then an update would've caused it to increase TPOD dinging your score. But, because it's already paid, I posit that that's why there was no ding.

My questions, can you please confirm there was no point loss? And it would be lovely to see the data fields from a free annualcreditreport.com pull, If you if you would not mind.

@TheKid2 

[Dmessina666]

There was no point loss, but in fact a 5 point gain on EX, and 1 point on TU that accompanied that alert. 

I understand for the most part your explanation. What I don't understand is why I received "improved account" alerts almost across the board (CK, RocketHQ, Credit Journey, Nerdwallet)

Did something actually improve? Now, should I just leave it be and let it fall on its own in a couple years? It's a mess now, like someone stated above. Does it not matter like you said bc it was already paid previously and CO'd? 

[Anonymous]

@Dmessina666No it doesn’t matter, unless you can get it removed entirely. Once you pay a charge off it is finalized and does not continue to suppress your scores. The damage that is done (even by the payoff if applicable) remains, but it doesn’t get worse.

The reason all those sites told you improved account is because, just like you, they look at the graph. Unfortunately for you, the fico algorithm does not look at the graph.

Nothing improved and that tiny score shift was probably from something else.

[TheKid2]

---

@Dmessina666 wrote:

There was no point loss, but in fact a 5 point gain on EX, and 1 point on TU that accompanied that alert. 

I understand for the most part your explanation. What I don't understand is why I received "improved account" alerts almost across the board (CK, RocketHQ, Credit Journey, Nerdwallet)

Did something actually improve? Now, should I just leave it be and let it fall on its own in a couple years? It's a mess now, like someone stated above. Does it not matter like you said bc it was already paid previously and CO'd? 

---

@Anonymous - back me up on this thinking please

I think the blame here resides with the CMS and how they characterize the change they detected. Keep in mind, what the alert says it NOT what the FICO algo is reading. It's the CMS interpretation only. When I settled COs I saw various alerts, many times what you saw "Improved account", other times I saw EX say it was "New Acount" when the CO was updated to settled - I think because they wiped away all the payment history. In all cases I saw a score increase because they were actively reporting a CO every month and that finally stopped. I think it is very clear that when a new CO is added to payment history every month there is extra suppression to the scores.

So, in summary, I think we can ignore what the CMS alert says and just think in terms what the FICO algo sees. In this case, the algo is seeing that the debt is satisfied, you don't owe it anymore, and in the case of a CO the TPOD has stopped growing.

[Anonymous]

---

@TheKid2 wrote:

---

@Dmessina666 wrote:

There was no point loss, but in fact a 5 point gain on EX, and 1 point on TU that accompanied that alert. 

I understand for the most part your explanation. What I don't understand is why I received "improved account" alerts almost across the board (CK, RocketHQ, Credit Journey, Nerdwallet)

Did something actually improve? Now, should I just leave it be and let it fall on its own in a couple years? It's a mess now, like someone stated above. Does it not matter like you said bc it was already paid previously and CO'd? 

---

@Anonymous - back me up on this thinking please

I think the blame here resides with the CMS and how they characterize the change they detected. Keep in mind, what the alert says it NOT what the FICO algo is reading. It's the CMS interpretation only. When I settled COs I saw various alerts, many times what you saw "Improved account", other times I saw EX say it was "New Acount" when the CO was updated to settled - I think because they wiped away all the payment history. In all cases I saw a score increase because they were actively reporting a CO every month and that finally stopped. I think it is very clear that when a new CO is added to payment history every month there is extra suppression to the scores.

So, in summary, I think we can ignore what the CMS alert says and just think in terms what the FICO algo sees. In this case, the algo is seeing that the debt is satisfied, you don't owe it anymore, and in the case of a CO the TPOD has stopped growing.

---

@TheKid2 yes, absolutely correct, that's exactly my line of thinking. With one qualifier, when a new CO is added, yes, there is continual suppression to the scores as long as it's being continually updated. 

as a matter of fact you're very correct for a whole bunch of things on the CMS frontends that we call fluff because it's their interpretation of data and it's not the algorithms interpretation, so if you follow it you're going to be misled many times, when the CMS got it wrong, which is often.

The only things that are absolute reference are negative reason codes and score changes.

[Anonymous]

I edited the last post, but I have something else to say in addition. You’ve got to keep in mind that everything you see on the CMS frontend is the CMS's interpretation of the data from the CR, except for the score and the negative reason codes which are generated directly from the algorithm.