FICO Scoring Risk Rate

[Trudy]

BBB, I know you referenced a 'single' 60 day but I have two 30 days and one 60 day late from early 2012 and my FICO 8 scores are noted below.  So in regard to the OPs inquiring of passing 800 with a 60 day, its clearly possible with EQ and EX.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that info above. 

I'd like to hear from someone that had a single 60 day fall off at the 7 year mark and its impact on FICO scores.

Based on your scores above, one of two things is possible, or some combination of the two.  One, the impact of a 60 day late does fade over time and/or doesn't carry full strength for the entire 7 years... or, Two, the impact of a 60 day late is significantly less strong (say, half) that of a 90 day or greater late.

[EW800]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for that info above. 

I'd like to hear from someone that had a single 60 day fall off at the 7 year mark and its impact on FICO scores.

Based on your scores above, one of two things is possible, or some combination of the two.  One, the impact of a 60 day late does fade over time and/or doesn't carry full strength for the entire 7 years... or, Two, the impact of a 60 day late is significantly less strong (say, half) that of a 90 day or greater late.

---

I would sure like to know this as well.  It will be about the end of the year when my one 30-day late and one 60-day late fall off, which will then leave a completely clean report.  As I mentioned previously, my  wife and I have very similar reports, although the 30-day and 60-day do not show on hers.  Her FICO 8 scores are about 30 points higher than mine, so just based on this it gives me the impression that I am being dinged about 30 points for having the 60-day late.  It sure seems a bit excessive to me after more than six years, however if it is keeping me in a dirty scorecard, I guess it makes sense. 

Hopefully someone can report results sooner, but if not I will track it closely when my 60-day drops around the end of the year or so.  

[Revelate]

I unfortunately don't have a discrete datapoint as my lates fell off before my tax lien on EQ/EX, and TU had a 30D left on it and I wasn't really monitoring TU that closely anyway.

I suspect a 60/90D are counted darned close to the same frankly, maybe they all are up to a CO potentially especially when we're talking bucketing.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate

I suspect a 60/90D are counted darned close to the same frankly, maybe they all are up to a CO potentially especially when we're talking bucketing.

---

Rev, I don't think that's possible.  Trudy's FICO 8 scores are EQ-817 | TU-790 | EX-810 with the presence of a 60 day late from ~5 years ago.  I have not heard of anyone with a 90 day late (or other major baddie) referencing a FICO 8 score above 768.  Maybe there are some out there and I've missed them, so if you have heard of scores > 768 with a major present I'd be interested to hear about them.  From where I stand, it looks to me that the difference between an aged lone 60 day verses an aged lone 90 day could be around 30-40 points.

[Anonymous]

---

@EW800As I mentioned previously, my  wife and I have very similar reports, although the 30-day and 60-day do not show on hers.  Her FICO 8 scores are about 30 points higher than mine, so just based on this it gives me the impression that I am being dinged about 30 points for having the 60-day late.  It sure seems a bit excessive to me after more than six years, however if it is keeping me in a dirty scorecard, I guess it makes sense. 

---

I'm quite sure we talked about this in another thread at some point, but did you attempt to get that 60 day late removed via GW and simply didn't have success?

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Revelate

I suspect a 60/90D are counted darned close to the same frankly, maybe they all are up to a CO potentially especially when we're talking bucketing.

---

Rev, I don't think that's possible.  Trudy's FICO 8 scores are EQ-817 | TU-790 | EX-810 with the presence of a 60 day late from ~5 years ago.  I have not heard of anyone with a 90 day late (or other major baddie) referencing a FICO 8 score above 768.  Maybe there are some out there and I've missed them, so if you have heard of scores > 768 with a major present I'd be interested to hear about them.  From where I stand, it looks to me that the difference between an aged lone 60 day verses an aged lone 90 day could be around 30-40 points.

---

There was one report from several years ago with a 90D late that was around 798 (might have been 789 or similar, still 780+ I know)  just before exclusion IIRC, I recall being absolutely shocked at the time as I thought like you it would preclude one from anything above a 760.  I doubt it could be pulled out of the mess frankly.

I don't think we understand serious deliquency scorecard segmentation enough: collections / tax liens / PR's of any sort are pretty well characterized, but lates really aren't... 30D lates are in the top 8 when talking FICO 8, there's reason codes that flatly don't exist in the negative ones, but there's 4 derogatory scorecards and lates I think fall into the other half (PR's / collections in the first two) and presumably there's a split on age, though that age might be pretty short for lates.

[EW800]

---

@Anonymous 

---

I'm quite sure we talked about this in another thread at some point, but did you attempt to get that 60 day late removed via GW and simply didn't have success?

---

Hi BBS,  

Oh yes, I tried.   I paid the loan off in about 2015 and started sending out GW letters.   They rejected my requests, and from what we have all read about Citi liking to add a comment to GW-attempt accounts, I ended up getting the dreaded "Consumer Disputes This Account Information -- Meets FCRA Requirements" on all three credit bureaus.  I then made a couple of calls to Citi, very politely stating that I had not disputed anything and would like the comments removed.  Those calls were very frustrating, as it was like talking to a brick wall, being told that was their policy and was even told that the comments would remain for as long as the account is on my CR's.  Not sure why or how, but about a year later the comments did come off or fall off.  

I would LOVE to GW the 30-day late and 60-day late away, however at this point I am afraid they would just slap those comments back on the accounts.  The accounts should either fall off or turn positive (not sure which, can anyone advise?) in about six months or so.  I figured at this point it may be best to let it go.  If you or anyone else suggests otherwise, I am all ears!   

Thanks to all!  

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate

---

There was one report from several years ago with a 90D late that was around 798 (might have been 789 or similar, still 780+ I know)  just before exclusion IIRC, I recall being absolutely shocked at the time as I thought like you it would preclude one from anything above a 760.  I doubt it could be pulled out of the mess frankly.

I don't think we understand serious deliquency scorecard segmentation enough: collections / tax liens / PR's of any sort are pretty well characterized, but lates really aren't... 30D lates are in the top 8 when talking FICO 8, there's reason codes that flatly don't exist in the negative ones, but there's 4 derogatory scorecards and lates I think fall into the other half (PR's / collections in the first two) and presumably there's a split on age, though that age might be pretty short for lates.

---

Agreed that in general we have a lot to learn with respect to scorecard assignment based on what constitutes a serious delinquency when it comes to different severity late payments.

If you or anyone else comes across that thread where someone reported a 780+ FICO 8 score with a 90 day late on their report please provide the link to that thread.  I'd definitely like to read about it and find out what their profile outside of the 90 date late payment looked like.

[Anonymous]

---

@EW800

I would LOVE to GW the 30-day late and 60-day late away, however at this point I am afraid they would just slap those comments back on the accounts.  The accounts should either fall off or turn positive (not sure which, can anyone advise?) in about six months or so.  I figured at this point it may be best to let it go.  If you or anyone else suggests otherwise, I am all ears!   

---

Honestly, the comments really don't matter much.  I'm aggressive when it comes to GW, so my recommendation would be to attempt it again.  If you're told no again, try again a month or so later.  Use different means of contact... snail mail, phone, email to the CEO, social media contact, etc.  If you see dispute comments appear again, simply request that they be removed, as you aren't disputing anything.  If the comments stayed an extended period of time and bothered you, just file a complaint with the BBB/CFPB and I'd bet the comments would be gone within a week.