FICO 5 4 2

[Anonymous]

The reason I ask if the charge off had been regularly updating is because if it had not, it can cause a decrease.

That’s crazy it didn’t move even one point. Are you sure TU has received all the updates?

[Anonymous]

That suggests to me the presence of a negative item of equal severity that's of relative equal recency (or newer).

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

That suggests to me the presence of a negative item of equal severity that's of relative equal recency (or newer).

---

That's what I'm thinking. I'm combing through it now. My lender stated that in 2 months my score would get to 683 according to the stimulator he uses but that me doing anything wouldn't change it. He said it's just going to take time. He played with the stimulator with different scenarios and nothing changed. So I'm just going to watch and wait 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
The reason I ask if the charge off had been regularly updating is because if it had not, it can cause a decrease.

That’s crazy it didn’t move even one point. Are you sure TU has received all the updates?

---

Yup I'm positive lol. My lender stated that in 2 months my score would get to 683 according to the stimulator he uses but that me doing anything wouldn't change it. He said it's just going to take time. He played with the stimulator with different scenarios and nothing changed. So I'm just going to watch and wait 

[Anonymous]

Simulatiors are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.  Your lender I would think would know that, but in the off chance that he doesn't just make sure you understand that whatever it/he is "projecting" may not be accurate at all.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Simulatiors are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.  Your lender I would think would know that, but in the off chance that he doesn't just make sure you understand that whatever it/he is "projecting" may not be accurate at all.

---

Very true! That's why I'm still working on it. I don't trust the simulators at all. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Simulatiors are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.  Your lender I would think would know that, but in the off chance that he doesn't just make sure you understand that whatever it/he is "projecting" may not be accurate at all.

---

Very true! That's why I'm still working on it. I don't trust the simulators at all. 

---

But it could be true what are all your aging metrics?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Simulatiors are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.  Your lender I would think would know that, but in the off chance that he doesn't just make sure you understand that whatever it/he is "projecting" may not be accurate at all.

---

Very true! That's why I'm still working on it. I don't trust the simulators at all. 

---

But it could be true what are all your aging metrics?

---

Aging metrics???? 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Simulatiors are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.  Your lender I would think would know that, but in the off chance that he doesn't just make sure you understand that whatever it/he is "projecting" may not be accurate at all.

---

Very true! That's why I'm still working on it. I don't trust the simulators at all. 

---

But it could be true what are all your aging metrics?

---

Aging metrics???? 

---

@Anonymous AAoA, AAoRA, AAoLA, AoOA, AoORA, and was that the only negative you had is that one charge off? did you ever say whether it had been reporting regularly or not?

[Anonymous]

See the Scoring Primer under Length of History section for an explanation of the acronyms. (Linked at the top of my signature.)