I don't doubt that you've learned a lot at JP Morgan --- it's a class act among investment institutions. If you're in NYC, visit the JP Morgan library.
But remember that you didn't learn it all at those other lending institutions and you are probably one of the exceptions as far as loan underwriters are concerned. Then again, how big were the loans they were asking for and for what purposes?
I've got an MBA in finance. My top courses were always things like investment analysis, portfolio management, statistics/risk analysis ...
Look at your 608. With all the charge-offs, the sore was still 608 despite all the stability, good recent credit history --- and it didn't hurt that they had several accounts with your bank. But this is what I am talking about --- other lenders will very often just look at the 608 and say that they're under their cut-off point. And I would suppose that those accounts with your bank made you look a little harder and more favorably. But most people don't have other accounts with these people.
Look at CapOne. I have NEVER seen a CapOne banking facility. Once in a while I get some direct mail about CapOne Internet accounts. But how many people are likely to do banking with an institution they can walk into and access their accounts instantly?
Moreover,at least in California, I don't see people going directly to banks to get mortgages. They get mortgage brokers. Many mortgage lenders aren't even banks, or they represent off-shore entities with local contacts. Then, they sell the mortgages as fast as possible. I did one refi several years ago. Within one year, I was on my third company as a holder of the mortgage. Talk about instability!!
And the mortgage brokers are far from honest. My fiance was looking at a refi and one of these subprime types was trying to sell her. She asked me to stop by and talk to this guy when he came to see her with papers. I basically told him to take a flying leap. His Truth in Lending statement was garbage --- later we got one from the lending institution that was truthful and didn't coincide with his at all. He never even mentioned negative amortization; increasing debt levels; etc. --- just how much less would be paid over five years and then, of course you could reapply for such a loan again (maybe, if they were still available) to keep payments down, but no mention of eroding equity. AND there are LOTS of these clowns.
As for your 720, I would agree with you, although the 720's future propects might be better depending on what he does, how old he is, etc etc etc. Were all his scores 720 or better?
You were right to look at them indiviually -- but most banks/lenders, I have found, will scan the Fannie Mae --- especially nonbank lenders. None care WHY you may have had credit problems. In my case, it was purely a long-term medical issue --- a condition not likely to recur. Nor do they care that since my recovery I have tried to put everything right. Until recently, my FICO scores sucked and, while they have improved, they are still well below 700 and stagnant for no other reason than those charge-offs I've paid or setled and despite a positive recent credit history.
Nope --- except for the few who actually do their job, FICO carries more weight. Remember, you can't get into trouble for saying "NO," but a yes can cost you. To take off on Johnny Cochrane --- "If the FICO is low, ya gotta say no."
BTW: You say you've worked for "various lenders" ove the past five years. How does that rank your stability? Does it really reflect your credit-worthiness?