More on time accts report ease the sting of lates?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I never considered before that my 30/60/90 late for $2.93 may not be impacting my score.  I always simply thought a late was a late regardless of the dollar value.  It would be nice to know if this was really impacting my score or not.  If it's not, it's probably not worth all the time and energy I've been putting into trying to get them removed via GW.

---

It's worth removing as you never know what scoring model a lender may use and how it looks at your file. I'm going by memory on reading about the dollar threshold on Fico 8 - you should verify. I'll check my documents and paste a statement from Fico when I find it - since your late is for a loan, I think it may be treated like a "nuisance" collection.

Score impications aside, if this is a loan I thought had been paid in full a year early, seeing the blemish on there would darken my mood every time I saw it.

Small-balance collections accounts

FICO® Score 8 ignores small-dollar "nuisance" collection accounts in which the original balance was less than $100.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, that's very good to know!  I'm glad it isn't impacting my score as it's my most recent baddie and one I thought would be holding my scores back the most.  Looks like I need to target my 30/60 from the summer of 2014 and my 30/60 from the summer of 2013 which are the last recent (relatively) blemishes on my reports.

It does drive me insane every time I think about it though, even if it isn't impacting my scores.  I got the loan through Wells Fargo Financial when making a $1500 purchase at a furniture store.  I had the cash to buy it outright at the time, but the salesman talked me into 0% financing for 18 months yadda yadda and figured it would look good on my credit report to pay off a loan quickly.  So I paid the thing off in 7 months (I thought) but short paid that last $2.93.  Stupid mistake on my part no doubt, but certainly not an accurate representation of my true creditworthiness to show a 30/60/90 for that $2.93.  That's been sort of the argument I present in all of my GW letters to WF... basically that I understand their desire to only report accurate information to the bureaus, but that information that they report is supposed to be an accurate representation of their creditworthiness and that clearly when reviewing my account reporting the account 90 days late for $2.93 that was paid off a year early is not a fair representation IMO.  I will continue to plug away at this thing...

[Revelate]

TT, the only exclusion in FICO is for collections <$100 when we're talking FICO 8 that anyone to my knowledge is aware of.

How did you come to the conclusion that a late, which has no balance associated with it, not be counted because there's $2 and something on the tradeline?  Payment history isn't treated as a nuisance collection, that'd be somewhat absurd in my estimation as lates still count on closed tradelines honestly, therefore it follows straightforwardly that lates count on an open tradeline regardless of balance.  Just like revolving utilization has no memory, a late is a late is a late: no remembered balances.  All FICO versions definitely prior to 9, and probably 9 as well, don't look at the historical balances field that some lenders report: that wasn't even added until after FICO 8 was released.

The individual with the 785 I was referencing was before well BBS's time... when I was still a moderator, interesting to see that another individual has a high score with significant deliquencies.

Put simply there's something else going on for the score, though I haven't really looked at BBS's profile.

[Thomas_Thumb]

In BBS case the account in question is an installment loan - not a revolving account. Also, this account's lates are not associated with monthly payments. They relate to an unpaid balance on a loan. I believe remaining loan balances are looked at.

I took the liberty of viewing this as a paid loan with a token outstanding balance. Not sure [based on info provided] if the account was closed with $2.93 remaining or stayed open the whole time. Yes, it's a paradigm shift in thinking for scoring of this "special case" late sequence.. 

[Anonymous]

The account stayed open; it was not closed with $2.93 remaining.  The $2.93 was outstanding for 3 months until I was made aware of it and paid it off, so the month following the 30/60/90 the account was closed, paid in full.  I didn't incur any fees or anything due to the lates on that $2.93 and since I was still well within my zero interest period the balance didn't get any larger.

Aside from the GW angle that I've been taking on this one, do either of you have any suggestions or recommendations as far as removal of this late reporting for such a trivial amount? 

[elim]

It sure helped having plenty of green marks when my LO was reviewing my CR with me in her office. It made my old Tax Lien look much smaller in the Manual Review.

290+ green marks today    :]

Opened	closed	positive
Feb-15		14.4
Feb-15		14.4
Nov-15		5.6
Nov-15		5.1
Feb-16		2.5
Apr-14		23.9
Oct-14		18.2
Feb-15		14.4
Mar-15		13.2
Oct-14		18.4
Apr-16		0.9
Apr-14		23.7
May-14		23.5
Oct-14		18.4
Mar-16		1.6
Oct-14		18.4
Dec-02	Oct-06	44.8
Aug-05	Nov-06	14.0
Apr-14	Apr-15	10.9
Oct-14	Nov-15	12.8
Apr-14	Apr-15	11.8
	total	296

[NRB525]

296 of what?

Why are the details in decimal form?

There's repeat Month-Year references in the details, is this supposed to add up?

In the ranges, why does Apr-14 to Apr-15 have a lower number than Apr-14 alone? Two Apr-14 to Apr-15 ranges with different numbers?

I'm so confused

[Revelate]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

In BBS case the account in question is an installment loan - not a revolving account. Also, this account's lates are not associated with monthly payments. They relate to an unpaid balance on a loan. I believe remaining loan balances are looked at.

I took the liberty of viewing this as a paid loan with a token outstanding balance. Not sure [based on info provided] if the account was closed with $2.93 remaining or stayed open the whole time. Yes, it's a paradigm shift in thinking for scoring of this "special case" late sequence.. 

---

Tradeline data between installment and revolving are the same on the reports?  It's still payment history, difference is in the tradeline type.

Color me skeptical on this thinking .  That would be far afield from known metrics, even a credit card closed w/balance still counts both for revolving utilization and certainly for payment history.  Installment loans are calculated differently for utilization purposes, but for payment history a payment is a payment.

I'm not sure how we could test it really, but I can't get my head around it.  Interesting idea, but doesn't jive... maybe we still have the sun going around the earth for the rest of us, but I don't think so on this case.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

Tradeline data between installment and revolving are the same on the reports?  It's still payment history, difference is in the tradeline type.

Color me skeptical on this thinking .  That would be far afield from known metrics, even a credit card closed w/balance still counts both for revolving utilization and certainly for payment history.  Installment loans are calculated differently for utilization purposes, but for payment history a payment is a payment.

I'm not sure how we could test it really, but I can't get my head around it.  Interesting idea, but doesn't jive... maybe we still have the sun going around the earth for the rest of us, but I don't think so on this case.

---

Seek and you shall find.