No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
TampaBrian wrote:
Oh, yes, one more thing. Before the recent Bank bail-outs, I owed about 20K more and had a score which was 100 points higher. Now, does that make sense to you?
Was this before the late?
I can assure you, the bank bail outs didn't affect FICO scores.
Where are you getting your scores?
I agree, but after the bail outs several card grantors (Chase, BOA, Amex) lowered my limits to what I owed(roughly half of what they had been). And no they did that in December before my son's late was showing. And let's get to my son's late... Disreguarding my verbal agreement with the lender(that they would inform me if my son was late with a payment), Why should my cosign be weighted as heavily as I had made it myself? After all, I am acting as an additional guarantor of the debt, and as such, I have stood by my word.
I get my scores from MY FICO.
The bank bail-outs indirectly affected my score by the banks actions. They have been recieving a great deal of criticism from congress and the Obama Administration for just these kinds of acts.
@Anonymous wrote:
700Man, I can sense your frustration, but remember, FICO scoring is based on statistical analysis of information. No matter how much you like/don't like or think it makes sense or is ridiculous, if FICO's past statistics show that people with lots of inquiries or a few 30 day lates are more likely to default, then it *will* affect your FICO score in a manner proportionally consistent with the statistics. I really doubt the FICO model is based on arbitrary factors.
I see your points about taking additional information into consideration, but I personally think that's the job of the lender, not Fair Isaac. FICO is intended to be a score that reflects your credit history, to the exclusion of all else. I don't think your FICO score is intented to be the end-all be-all measure of credit worthiness. I don't think any reputable mortgage lenders rely on your FICO score alone.
To provide a counter-argument to your "assets in the bank" position, if Person A has assets in the bank and Person B does not, but they both have "30 day past due" markers on their records, then clearly Person A's assets didn't help them avoid missing that payment. Maybe Person A is simply unwilling to cash in those assets to pay a debt, in which case they are of no value to creditors. It's your past actions that FICO reflects, not how or why or what you could have done or would do in the future.
Also, regarding 30 day lates, I'm pretty sure that an account is only "30 days past due" when you pay 30 or more days after the "payment due date". So, if you're credit card payment is due on the 8th, and you pay on the 9th, your CCC will bill you a late fee, but I don't think that they can report you as being 30 days past due.
All quite correct. Before I started using online banking and Excel spreadsheets to keep track of my finances, maybe twice a year I would neglect some bill, get the polite reminder, and pay immediately upon being reminded I was late. None of these late payments ever appeared in my credit history. So unless the companies with which I do business are highly unusual, it seems to me that paying an occasional late fee is not likely to affect a person's FICO score IF they make good any neglected payment immediately upon being informed of it. Therefore a 30-day late appearing on a credit history means either that somebody did not pay immediately upon being notified of a late payment, OR that some companies were a lot more strict than any company with whom I have done business.
Everything I have read about FICO scoring and bad credit says (1) the FICO scoring model is driven entirely by statistics and (2) income and assets do NOT have much value for predicting whether a person will get into financial trouble. At every income level there are people who live within their means and stay out of financial trouble. At every income level there are people who are less prudent. At every income level there are people who get into financial trouble for reasons beyond their control.
In a competitive markeplace, if some company were able to devise a scoring model that did the same job of FICO scoring with much better accuracy, that company would be able to make a huge amount of money by finding people who were being unfairly penalized by the FICO formula and offering them credit on much more favorable terms.
Here is a little more about how data mining is done:
http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=ficoscoring&message.id=32527#M32527
In this message, you state:
TampaBrian wrote:
No, not in writing (my fault and I should know better). The late was last November and though I live in Florida, My son lives in Wisconsin.
So, I can see why the CCC lowered your limits in December. Someone with $35K CC debt, perfect history for 35 years, just had a 30 day late. A bullseye was just painted on your back.
When you co-sign the loan, you are just as responsible for the debt as anyone. FICO makes no difference between accounts in which you are the primary and in which you are a co-signer. I don't think they should make a difference either because the agreement you sign states you are just as responsible as the primary.
TampaBrian wrote:I agree, but after the bail outs several card grantors (Chase, BOA, Amex) lowered my limits to what I owed(roughly half of what they had been). And no they did that in December before my son's late was showing. And let's get to my son's late... Disreguarding my verbal agreement with the lender(that they would inform me if my son was late with a payment), Why should my cosign be weighted as heavily as I had made it myself? After all, I am acting as an additional guarantor of the debt, and as such, I have stood by my word.
I get my scores from MY FICO.
The bank bail-outs indirectly affected my score by the banks actions. They have been recieving a great deal of criticism from congress and the Obama Administration for just these kinds of acts.
Message Edited by TampaBrian on 04-26-2009 01:57 PMMessage Edited by TampaBrian on 04-26-2009 01:58 PMMessage Edited by TampaBrian on 04-26-2009 02:03 PM
My dear Sidewinder, Take the time to read wahat I've said, please. My son's payment was due in late November. The CCCs lowered my credit limits in early December, more that a month PRIOR to the reporting agencies recording that late.
No, I believe that a person who, in good faith, promises to make good any debt by another should not be penalized significantly by a single 30 day late of which they were not aware. They should be penalized if they fail to make that debt good,however. When you guarantee the performance of another person, you should have the right to be made aware and to correct the situation before you are penalized.
When I cosign, I am giving my bond that I will guarantee the lender against default. I am guaranteeing that I will pay if the creditor doesn't. There is no way that I can possible guarantee every action or inaction by that creditor. Your insurancce company gaurantees that they will pay for any damages that you may cause if you have an accident. They in no way can guarantee that you won't have one! Get my drift? My son's being 30 days late in no way refects on my perfomance, either past or future. Therefore i should not be penalized unless I failed to make good.There will be legislation addressing these shortcomings soon I hope.
Thirty five years of history should weigh more heavily. I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be considered, I'm just saying that the weighting is off and that the Banks and other lender missuse the FICO information, most assuming that it is worth more that it truly is. The Idea is OK but the algorythm needs more than a little tweaking.
Every Banker who looks at my credit report can't figure out why I'm not in the mid 700's. That has happened time after time. even in periods of 0 credit card debt just a mortgage payment, no car payment, The highest I've ever scored is 695(though I'm usually around 675 or so.
Tell me why I get fluctuations of 60 points or more month to month?
MODS; Is this thread jacking??????
What happened to the little old lady?
By the way she had 50 years history.
@Anonymous wrote:MODS; Is this thread jacking??????
What happened to the little old lady?
Message Edited by casinoannie97 on 04-28-2009 07:11 AM
Byrd man: maybe that's why the banks are in trouble.. Too many hotshots and not enough little old ladies. LOL
Hey Wonderin---I'm the little old lady just coming home from having a stroke...........survived. How you doing?
@Anonymous wrote:My dear Sidewinder, Take the time to read wahat I've said, please. My son's payment was due in late November. The CCCs lowered my credit limits in early December, more that a month PRIOR to the reporting agencies recording that late.
I think there's more to the story. I haven't read all of your posts, so please forgive me if I presume anything incorrectly!
You live in Florida (so do I) and I know from oodles of friends (and personal experience) that because we're in one of the highest foreclosure-affected states, credit, regular credit is being kept on a tight leash. Had one friend who, presumably (because there weren't any other issues occurring) had their AmEx CL cut by 2/3 simply for living in Florida, using the card infrequently and having a mortgage serviced by CountryWide (as we do).
Again, please forgive me if I presume too much.
No, I believe that a person who, in good faith, promises to make good any debt by another should not be penalized significantly by a single 30 day late of which they were not aware. They should be penalized if they fail to make that debt good,however. When you guarantee the performance of another person, you should have the right to be made aware and to correct the situation before you are penalized.
But the lender/creditor *assumes* that if you care enough to lend your good name to the debt, you care enough to keep tabs on it, as well. I'll bet you 100 FICO points that if you had called up the office holding the debt and asked the status of the account, they would have told you. They'd HAVE to, since you co-signed on the debt.
I'm not trying to argue with you or point a finger, just making the point that that *is* the assumption made -- both by FICO and the creditor.
Bottom line is that you had the right to correct the situation simply by communicating with the creditor and being able to ask the status of the account.
If the creditor *has* to "hold your hand" in getting the account paid, it's not really a reflection of how well you pay your bills, is it?
When I cosign, I am giving my bond that I will guarantee the lender against default. I am guaranteeing that I will pay if the creditor doesn't. There is no way that I can possible guarantee every action or inaction by that creditor. Your insurancce company gaurantees that they will pay for any damages that you may cause if you have an accident. They in no way can guarantee that you won't have one! Get my drift? My son's being 30 days late in no way refects on my perfomance, either past or future. Therefore i should not be penalized unless I failed to make good.There will be legislation addressing these shortcomings soon I hope.
Again, legally, yes it does reflect on you. You agreed to be equally responsible for the debt (basic contract law) and that includes recognizing the necessity of keeping track of its status. If that means picking up the phone and calling to ask a question, that onus is on you as part of taking responsiblity.
The only reason why creditors call when a payment is a few days late is NOT because they want to help YOU (or anyone else) -- its because they want to mitigate their losses as much as possible. Legally, they can just keep their mouth shut and let you accrue late notations. It's not their responsibility to hold your hand and nag you into paying the bill -- it's just their responsibility to notify you of the charges, break-down the interest, and notify you of when it's due.
Thirty five years of history should weigh more heavily. I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be considered, I'm just saying that the weighting is off and that the Banks and other lender missuse the FICO information, most assuming that it is worth more that it truly is. The Idea is OK but the algorythm needs more than a little tweaking.
Every Banker who looks at my credit report can't figure out why I'm not in the mid 700's. That has happened time after time. even in periods of 0 credit card debt just a mortgage payment, no car payment, The highest I've ever scored is 695(though I'm usually around 675 or so.
Tell me why I get fluctuations of 60 points or more month to month?
Message Edited by TampaBrian on 04-26-2009 03:01 PMMessage Edited by TampaBrian on 04-26-2009 03:02 PM
I don't mean to be a jerk. I really don't. And you have valid points on weighing variables in FICO scoring.
BUT to blame the creditor for not notifying you is inappropriate. They're not legally obligated to notify you if you're late (and since you co-signed and took equal responsibility under the law for the debt, you ARE equally late) -- that's *your* responsibility. Your son's responsibility FIRST, but yours, too.
The first "entity" to notify you that the payment was going to be late should have been your son, not the creditor. They're running a business ... and I think their taking the time out to look up your contact information would have taken far more time than your son would have in mentioning it in passing.
Keeping your credit safe and secure isn't their job.