I have the dreaded Consumer Finance reason code...

[Anonymous]

---

@redE2move wrote:

I'm a bit confused as well.  I've read thru this post and what I'm trying to figure out is, is it implied that if you have the "CFA code" listed on your credit report it prevents you from getting a mortgage?  

What if you already have a home and want to buy a second home would this code prevent you from getting a second mortage?

If your scores are in the mid 700s BUT you have this code does it prevent you from getting other lines of credit?

---

Doesn’t prevent you from doing anything, the coding just holds back your score until it’s gone, that’s all. 

Its really crappy that something I did to help rebuild my credit will actually damage it for another 10 years. 

[redE2move]

Oh I see.  Thanks for clearing that up.  

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if fingerhut fresh start program codes as this? I just generated my first fico scores this month for Experian and Equifax (I've had them for TU for a couple months, long story). I purchased the $1 trial from Experian and it's showing on my reason codes on my Fico 8 auto scores. Fingerhut is the only installment account on Experian, everything else is revolving

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Its really crappy that something I did to help rebuild my credit will actually damage it for another 10 years. 

---

Well, "damage" and "significantly damage" are two different things.  IMO, a CFA doesn't cause more than a minor impact.  I have yet to see concrete evidence that the removal of this negative reason code results in a significant score change.  I think many times a bigger deal is made about these than should be the case.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Its really crappy that something I did to help rebuild my credit will actually damage it for another 10 years. 

---

Well, "damage" and "significantly damage" are two different things.  IMO, a CFA doesn't cause more than a minor impact.  I have yet to see concrete evidence that the removal of this negative reason code results in a significant score change.  I think many times a bigger deal is made about these than should be the case.

---

Sure doesn’t look minor on my auto score. 

Second most damaging factor on that one. 

Considering that seeking credit is so low despite me having added 5 accounts since December when I pulled that in January, it’s more damaging than a short history or actively seeking credit which means it’s not an insignificant number. 

I am far more likely to purchase a car in the next 10 years than a house, seems that CFA puts me at a marked disadvantage there. 

[redE2move]

But isn't your actual credit scores, AAOA AND payment history that  gets you approved for a car, house, credit cards, etc?  If we still have members who are able to obtain mid to high 700s with the CFA code why should anything else matter?  Unless your scores stop growing despite the goodies underlined then I can't see why this code has everyone so upset.  Maybe you won't get to the 800 club anytime soon but being in the 800 club does not stop you from getting a great home rate OR single digit to 0% interest on a car loan or credit card offer.  It never stopped me and to be honest I haven't hit the 750 club yet. Unless you can't get an approval due this code I can't see it as being an absolute threat.

[Anonymous]

It’s the fact that I’m getting penalized for a credit action that I was never informed there would be a penalty for that pisses me off. I should easily get to 740 when my BK falls off (probably more on EQ and EX since my AAoA will be much longer than TU as well) but that doesn’t negate the fact my scores would be even better without the CFA. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Sure doesn’t look minor on my auto score. 

Second most damaging factor on that one. 

---

Perhaps it impacts auto scores more.  I don't know.  All your #2 negative reason code means is that it's impacting your score at least 1 more point than #3 and #4, so there's still no way of really quantifying it as being "significant" IMO.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Sure doesn’t look minor on my auto score. 

Second most damaging factor on that one. 

---

Perhaps it impacts auto scores more.  I don't know.  All your #2 negative reason code means is that it's impacting your score at least 1 more point than #3 and #4, so there's still no way of really quantifying it as being "significant" IMO.

---

I thought that these older score models were much more damaged by new accounts than the newer models? If that’s the case, the CFA is more damaging than all of the new accounts I’ve added. That seems very easy to quantify as “significant”

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

I thought that these older score models were much more damaged by new accounts than the newer models? If that’s the case, the CFA is more damaging than all of the new accounts I’ve added. That seems very easy to quantify as “significant”

---

Do you mean much more damaged by new CFA accounts in your first sentence?  If so, I have no idea if that's the case and can't speak on it. 

Anyway, "significant" is a vague term, not able to be quantified and can vary greatly from person to person.  People on this forum all the time talk about "significant" score changes, where their scores "tanked" and half the time they're talking about a single-digit number or barely a two-digit point change.  From my perspective, such changes aren't significant, but perhaps they are for someone else.