cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

Congratulations indeed! Do you have any other AU accounts? If not, did that AU account have a balance?
Message 41 of 48
I_Love_Cards
Regular Contributor

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

I don’t have any other AU accounts.

The account in question was opened from 2002-2013. No balance and otherwise perfect payment history. The only funky thing was the comment. It wasn’t listed as a negative or potentially negative account.

This old AU account has been on my TU report but not EQ or EX (until it just appeared on EX a couple months ago-with the weird comment and a 20 point score drop). TU doesn’t have the funky comment.
Message 42 of 48
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

The reason why I am asking is there is a "no revolving balance" penalty that’s independently applied on AU accounts. So since that was your one and only AU and it had a zero balance, it could’ve been giving you the penalty, except that it was a closed account, so I don’t think that’s possible.

But the comment shouldn’t be considered derogatory that it was closed by the grantor so that’s still weird. Either way you got your points that’s all that matters.

Congratulations!
Message 43 of 48
I_Love_Cards
Regular Contributor

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

I wonder if it’s the “reported by subscriber” portion of the comment? I don’t really understand what that means (within the context of it being an actual account - Capital One):

Everything else about it is good-old, solid payment, nothing weird.

Regardless-I got my points back so I am happy. Thankfully it was an AU account so relatively easy to take care of. What a weird deal though.

Message 44 of 48
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

The subscriber is the reporting FI, as they "subscribe" to the services of the CRA. The Grantor is the FI that granted the account.

So, just means Cap1 closed it and reported it, nothing derogatory there, as they are closed for non-use by Grantor without derogatory info all the time. So I am perplexed as well, but like we said, you got your points back. Wish I understood it better though. I'm wondering if there is a flag or something that is not visible to us.
Message 45 of 48
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

Message 46 of 48
Aspireto850
Established Contributor

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

@Birdman7,

Thanks for the link to the article. I’m going to respectfully disagree with Experian your n the impact to score! 😆








Message 47 of 48
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Score Impacts: Comments & Pay History sections

I don’t think they’re lying to us and I don’t think FICO is either. There’s a lot they don’t tell us and there may even be some examples given that are nothing but examples (like when they give example numbers for the utilization thresholds, we know those are just examples and are not the exact numbers), but I don’t think they’re straight up lying, there’d be too much fallout.

But that doesn’t mean there’s not another reason that they’re not telling us or another flag or something. That account appears to have been causing the problem, we just don’t know what.
Message 48 of 48
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.