Timothy wrote:INO- FICO only "rates" the most sever and most recent derog on each tradeline. So if you were to get all but 1 late removed from each TL- the score would not change- it would look better in a manual review though.
I say this with no better information or any way to dispute it, but .... this can not possibly be true! 
I really wish I had a way to test this on my own file, because it really defies logic to me. (Maybe this is a new GW tactic on my sole TL that has 2 lates on it 
)
I really wish I had a way to test this on my own file, because it really defies logic to me. (Maybe this is a new GW tactic on my sole TL that has 2 lates on it )Since your score, by FiCOs admission, is largely "payment history", I can not possibly see that they would essentially count someone with a 3 month old 30 day late as the only blemish on their report the same as an indiviual with, for example, 7 30 day lates in the last year, the most recent of which was 3 months old.
Timothy wrote:If this was not the case - someone would be telling poeple to have a 30 after a serious derog- and i have NEVER heard this.
This seems to contradict your earlier assertion, and supports my point that they MUST count multipl derogs as "cumulative". In other words, it can never benefit you to add another late to a TL, under any circumstance, so it must accumulate negative points that rebuild with time.
Message Edited by VistaV on 03-21-2008 07:27 PM
On the same TL-
The Guy with the more recent 30 is going to get hit harder as his is MORE RECENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
A better way to make this more "Apples and Apples"
Example-
I was 30 days Late in Aug and Nov of 2006
FICO says 30 (how severe) 11/06 (how recent)
If I had another account or someone in the same bucket as me was ONLY 30 days late in Nov 06- the score reduction would be the same-
If 30 late In Oct and the 60 in Nov 06 - FICO says 60 , Nov 06
and ignores the 30- removing the 30 would do ZERO to the score-
"Since your score, by FiCOs admission, is largely "payment history", I can not possibly see that they would essentially count someone with a 3 month old 30 day late as the only blemish on their report the same as an indiviual with, for example, 7 30 day lates in the last year, the most recent of which was 3 months old"
VistaV wrote:
Timothy wrote:INO- FICO only "rates" the most sever and most recent derog on each tradeline. So if you were to get all but 1 late removed from each TL- the score would not change- it would look better in a manual review though.
I say this with no better information or any way to dispute it, but .... this can not possibly be true!Since your score, by FiCOs admission, is largely "payment history", I can not possibly see that they would essentially count someone with a 3 month old 30 day late as the only blemish on their report the same as an indiviual with, for example, 7 30 day lates in the last year, the most recent of which was 3 months old.
Timothy wrote:If this was not the case - someone would be telling poeple to have a 30 after a serious derog- and i have NEVER heard this.
This seems to contradict your earlier assertion, and supports my point that they MUST count multipl derogs as "cumulative". In other words, it can never benefit you to add another late to a TL, under any circumstance, so it must accumulate negative points that rebuild with time.
Message Edited by VistaV on 03-21-2008 07:27 PM
