Datapoint: Final 90 day late gone then back as 60.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

They don't send request to the CRAs, they push updates. That's what strikes me as odd.

---

What do you mean by "push updates?" 

Maybe their lingo is wrong.  In all of the letters they've sent me they state, "We've sent a request to the major credit reporting agencies..."

---

They just... provide information on the account. 

Account details in their own databases are exported into a format that can be batch processed and imported directly into credit manager, or into a stacking service's credit manager. A company of that size typically does not use a third party, so they can send updates directly through credit manager. The "request" would be internal, to get someone to update your account and queue it for batch or manual updating.

The software checks for compliance with reporting regulations and then accepts or rejects the update on the account. If it is accepted, the tradeline is updated.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

So, I have the unique experience of having a final baddie removed from an account on one bureau only to return a few months later but at a different severity, allowing me to precisely see the difference in scoring impact between the two.  The data you are seeing here is from Equifax and FICO 08 scores.

December 2016:  EQ score is 752 with the presence of a 2.1 year old 90 day late payment on one account.

January 2017:  EQ score is 793 with the 90 day late removed; reports are now "clean" so this final baddie resulted in a 31 point gain.

February 2017:  EQ score unchanged at 793.

March 2017:  EQ score drops to 787.  Upon looking at my old account that contained the 90 day late, I see that it now shows a 60 day late (now 2.3 years old).

So my conclusion here is that a 60 day late is definitely "minor" rather than "major" like a 90 day as the difference between the two being the only baddie of the same age is only 6 points.  This also disproves the theory that 30/60 day late payments lose all their impact after 2 years; at 2.3 years the 60 still has some impact, just not very much (6 points).  

I thought some may find this data above useful.  Now back to work on trying to get the creditor to remove the negative that they just put back on after a few months  

---

Huh.  Not sure on the 60 day = minor though your data certainly suggests that for your profile, but my own data may be stuck in a pattern of lates on that BOFA tradeline.  By my thinking my score should've been higher than 756 EX FICO 8 when my tax lien came off when I only had a 30 and then later 30/60 from 6 years ago.  

Also could confirm that there's still an impact all the way till they fall off the report: on said EX report the reason codes on all models were complaining about a deliquency, explicitly:

FICO 8 models (all): 1. You have one or more accounts showing missed payments or derogatory indicators

FICO 9 models (all): 2. You have one or more accounts showing missed payments or derogatory indicators. 

FICO 2 classic: 4. You have one or more accounts showing missed payments or derogatory indicators

That's sort of interesting to me to see where they fall in relation to the others (bolded numbers are their position in the reason codes), as I've typically mostly ignored #3/4 as anything serious.  FICO 2 considers my short history / inquiry count / accounts with balances from that snapshot more important.  I should go pull an EX set of scores now that the first 30 day late is gone.

Anyway, appreciate the additional datapoint!

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

---

Huh.  Not sure on the 60 day = minor though your data certainly suggests that for your profile, but my own data may be stuck in a pattern of lates on that BOFA tradeline.  By my thinking my score should've been higher than 756 EX FICO 8 when my tax lien came off when I only had a 30 and then later 30/60 from 6 years ago.  

Also could confirm that there's still an impact all the way till they fall off the report: on said EX report the reason codes on all models were complaining about a deliquency, explicitly:

---

You and I seem quite similar on EX.  My EX FICO 08 has been hanging out at 749-751 for 6 months+ and I'm convinced that it won't go about 751.  The only baddie I have on EX is a 60 day late from 2.3 years ago, the same one that just reappeared on EQ after vanishing as a 90 day late a couple of months back.  I'm assuming that if/when this 60 gets removed, hopefully in the next few weeks, that my EX FICO 08 will bump up into the 790 range.  While my data is limited (to only my profile) it seems to me that EX is a little less forgiving over time of minor (and perhaps major) delinquencies.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

 

Account details in their own databases are exported into a format that can be batch processed and imported directly into credit manager, or into a stacking service's credit manager. A company of that size typically does not use a third party, so they can send updates directly through credit manager. The "request" would be internal, to get someone to update your account and queue it for batch or manual updating.

The software checks for compliance with reporting regulations and then accepts or rejects the update on the account. If it is accepted, the tradeline is updated.

---

Gotcha.  So, in your opinion, where do you believe the disconnect is here regarding my situation with WF.  Do you believe it's internally with WF and the "request" or do you think that the software on the other end isn't accepting the update for some reason?

[Anonymous]

Update:

So I should add that I did have another "hidden" negative account in addition to the account mentioned at the start of this thread that had the 90 day late removed then returned as a 60 day late.  The other "hidden" account contained a 60 day late that could be seen on my real credit report, but not on a report viewed by any monitoring software such as CCT or CK.  Again, this is Equifax data we're talking here.

Tonight I pulled my CCT scores and noticed two things.  One, the 60 day late that had returned (from being first a 90 then gone) was gone again, which should have brought my EQ 08 score back up from 787 to 793.  To my surprise, evidently my "hidden" account is now also clean on EQ as my EQ FICO 08 is now 841.

This means that the value of my "final baddie" which was a 4.5 year old 60 day late payment was 48 points.

We'll see what happens with my EX and TU scores now.  Those two accounts that are now clean on EQ show 1 being dirty on EX and the other being dirty on TU, so I've got one dirty account left on each.  Hopefully my GW letters that yielded this favorable result on EQ follow suit on EX and TU soon as well...

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Update:

So I should add that I did have another "hidden" negative account in addition to the account mentioned at the start of this thread that had the 90 day late removed then returned as a 60 day late.  The other "hidden" account contained a 60 day late that could be seen on my real credit report, but not on a report viewed by any monitoring software such as CCT or CK.  Again, this is Equifax data we're talking here.

Tonight I pulled my CCT scores and noticed two things.  One, the 60 day late that had returned (from being first a 90 then gone) was gone again, which should have brought my EQ 08 score back up from 787 to 793.  To my surprise, evidently my "hidden" account is now also clean on EQ as my EQ FICO 08 is now 841.

This means that the value of my "final baddie" which was a 4.5 year old 60 day late payment was 48 points.

We'll see what happens with my EX and TU scores now.  Those two accounts that are now clean on EQ show 1 being dirty on EX and the other being dirty on TU, so I've got one dirty account left on each.  Hopefully my GW letters that yielded this favorable result on EQ follow suit on EX and TU soon as well...

---

And the slaughter begins.....

It's happening Brutal, it's happening....

[Anonymous]

I hope so.  The account from the BBB complaint is now clean on TU and EQ, just remains on EX.  Hopefully it comes off of EX soon and I see a nice score bump there.  TU I've got to worry about my other negative Synchrony account which has a 120 day on it.  My GW letters got that account clean on EX and EQ somehow, but not TU yet even though every response letter I've received has been negative.  Hopefully in continuing the GW campaign for TU doesn't result in me getting the baddie added back on to EX or EQ!