@masscredit wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:You should do a share-secued loan. You put up basic funds in a savings account at a CU, then get a small term loan against it. That should start reporting Term Loan activity. DCU has their Savings-Secured loan for as little as a $200 loan, 3.5% APR.
How long have you been doing "all cards but zero except 1" ? How many months of that in a string?
Do you think the benefits outweigh the gains? Don't know if they do an inquiry for that type of loan and AAoA would be reduced a little. If it will be more benefical in the long run, I could do something like that then maybe pay it down to the ideal loan utilization % for scoring (have been reading the other thread here) then just keep making payments on it for awhile.
I've gone 3-4 months in a row with just one card reporting. I sometimes change my main card that reports so they will overlap for a few weeks. There have also been times like this month when I just let a few cards report a balance. I got down to just one card reporting most months about a year and a half ago.
If it were me?
1) Get the secured loan, even if there's a HP. An INQ is a short term blip on your score, yes. But you have to cross that blip to get to the good stuff on the other side; a long term loan of small amount that adds to your file.
2) I'd not keep any regular credit cards at zero, except occasionally. This excludes any store cards. Only use store cards if it is a definite item you are buying anyway, then pay it to zero. You have a Barclays card. My perception from stories about Barclays, they are skittish. Keeping quiet about your ability to handle CC balances, meaning keeping zeros all the time, gets them in a "low credit customer" mode. Then when you have to use the cards for something, or decide to start showing PIF balances, might lead to some surprises. Not certainly, just possibly, but enough for me to want to keep letting them know I can work with the card balances. Or, in my actual case, avoiding Barclays altogether. (they denied me last summer for the Arrival+, which is fine, they had good reason due to the high utilization, but I'll never app another Barclay card ever).
3) Are you BL from any lenders? Those that you are not, I'd look for two or three more cards. HP? sure. But having more positive cards actively in your mix will help you in the long term. 3 cards is optimal, but you are looking to show responsible usage to get back from the past history. I think more cards and accounts helps with that.
4) Active, in my book, means the card is showing some small balance every month from regular, natural usage, or a low interest BT offer. The "all cards at zero but one" should not be a long term situation in any account, in my opinion. It is only for special occasions, like just before I die 
Good luck!
@masscredit wrote:I just took a look at the DCU site. Those seem like good options. I might take the hit and go for it. They can use the same inquiry for multiple things so I'll try for one of their cards at the same time. Was denied because of the tax liens the last time I tried. They are the only lender that has denied me because of them.
I'm blacklisted with AMEX, Chase and Discover. They were included in my BK. I have CLI requests coming up this month and next. Walmart and JCP this might then Cap 1 next month. I'll tighten things up for those then let cards report freely until my next round at the end of the year. That way I'm showing usage and payments but also have the best score possible when I request an increase.
Alliant and SDFCU are both better options than DCU if you're trying to maximize your scores.
Skip DCU, much as I love them personally, they suck for the secured installment loan. Can't pay it ahead more than 3 months and that sucks. Also DCU will deny you for unresolved tax liens whereas SDFCU may not even check credit, they certainly haven't HP'd people on either of the secured products to my knowledge. Alliant didn't HP either but apparently did for others based on some reports.
Also FWIW, I find the thought of FICO's tracking your balances historically laughable based on all of the solid anecdotal information presented previously, this random theory stuff isn't supported yet by anything I've seen and given I just hit 739 with a new inquiry on EX FICO 8 even with all my problems from the past (similar file to yours as we've discussed in the past) you're doing just fine on the balance reporting side.
Seriously for anyone, tell me how FICO could calculate on that, given that when FICO 8 was released, the historical balances weren't even reported to the bureaus as that change occurred circa 2011? Giving the current models way too much credit.
Anyway if you have no open installment tradelines, pick up the baby secured loan from Alliant or SDFCU for $500 let it report (hey get that datapoint please!) then pay it down (regular payment) to ~$40 and laugh all the way to the bank regarding your FICO 8 scores and proceed to mostly ignore the account for the next few years other than sporadic $1 payments to keep the inactivity fees away.
Incidently this is good for your EX 98 score as well absolutely, and having an installment loan at all probably helps EQ 04 and TU 04, and since you're sometime in the future working on a mortgage, just go do this right now.
@Revelate wrote:
@masscredit wrote:I just took a look at the DCU site. Those seem like good options. I might take the hit and go for it. They can use the same inquiry for multiple things so I'll try for one of their cards at the same time. Was denied because of the tax liens the last time I tried. They are the only lender that has denied me because of them.
I'm blacklisted with AMEX, Chase and Discover. They were included in my BK. I have CLI requests coming up this month and next. Walmart and JCP this might then Cap 1 next month. I'll tighten things up for those then let cards report freely until my next round at the end of the year. That way I'm showing usage and payments but also have the best score possible when I request an increase.
Also FWIW, I find the thought of FICO's tracking your balances historically laughable based on all of the solid anecdotal information presented previously, this random theory stuff isn't supported yet by anything I've seen and given I just hit 739 with a new inquiry on EX FICO 8 even with all my problems from the past (similar file to yours as we've discussed in the past) you're doing just fine on the balance reporting side.
Seriously for anyone, tell me how FICO could calculate on that, given that when FICO 8 was released, the historical balances weren't even reported to the bureaus as that change occurred circa 2011? Giving the current models way too much credit.
Not sure I follow. Historical balances have been on my reports for years. This is one part of a 2009 EX report. Every month shows the balance reported, right?
SIgh got confused. Reported payments weren't added, balances were before. Mea Culpa
That doesn't negate the fact that everyone who's seriously tested the algorithm has found revolving utilization to be instant in time. I know you may not want to go back and read the old historical data, but it's there, also in the fact everyone who makes a big payment from major utilization to near zero gets a corresponding big bump in FICO and that happens all the time here.
@masscredit wrote:
@Revelate wrote:Alliant and SDFCU are both better options than DCU if you're trying to maximize your scores.
Skip DCU, much as I love them personally, they suck for the secured installment loan. Can't pay it ahead more than 3 months and that sucks. Also DCU will deny you for unresolved tax liens whereas SDFCU may not even check credit, they certainly haven't HP'd people on either of the secured products to my knowledge. Alliant didn't HP either but apparently did for others based on some reports.
Also FWIW, I find the thought of FICO's tracking your balances historically laughable based on all of the solid anecdotal information presented previously, this random theory stuff isn't supported yet by anything I've seen and given I just hit 739 with a new inquiry on EX FICO 8 even with all my problems from the past (similar file to yours as we've discussed in the past) you're doing just fine on the balance reporting side.
Seriously for anyone, tell me how FICO could calculate on that, given that when FICO 8 was released, the historical balances weren't even reported to the bureaus as that change occurred circa 2011? Giving the current models way too much credit.
Anyway if you have no open installment tradelines, pick up the baby secured loan from Alliant or SDFCU for $500 let it report (hey get that datapoint please!) then pay it down (regular payment) to ~$40 and laugh all the way to the bank regarding your FICO 8 scores and proceed to mostly ignore the account for the next few years other than sporadic $1 payments to keep the inactivity fees away.
Incidently this is good for your EX 98 score as well absolutely, and having an installment loan at all probably helps EQ 04 and TU 04, and since you're sometime in the future working on a mortgage, just go do this right now.
I'm researching both CUs now. Do you think I should just go for a secured loan or maybe try for a regular personal loan first? Also, do they do multiple pulls for different services like if I was to apply for one of their credit cards at the same time. Would be nice to do a few things with one pull.
Just get the $500 5 year secured loan (or however long they'll give it to you for); SDFCU doesn't do a credit check and won't be an inquiry for membership or secured products, SP for indentity verification was it. Alliant didn't do a HP with me but there were reports of others getting one so YMMV.
Don't worry about additional credit cards now, optimize your file where it's weak and IIRC you have plenty of revolving lines already. Adding a lackluster CU card doesn't do you any good.
FWIW regular personal loans are pretty much the hardest thing to get underwritten, hence the rise of the P2P lending space. Doubtful if I could get one and my derogatories have long since been paid, think you still have open tax liens so I wouldn't even consider that as an option.
Also personal loans typically have origination fees, why spend more than you need to in order to play a FICO reindeer game? Solve it cheaply and effectively.
@Revelate wrote:SIgh got confused. Reported payments weren't added, balances were before. Mea Culpa
That doesn't negate the fact that everyone who's seriously tested the algorithm has found revolving utilization to be instant in time. I know you may not want to go back and read the old historical data, but it's there, also in the fact everyone who makes a big payment from major utilization to near zero gets a corresponding big bump in FICO and that happens all the time here.
Ok, payments not listed earlier.
No dispute, overall utilization is instant in time. A big change in utilization is a mountain in FICO that creates its own weather.
As to Payments, I don't argue that payments themselves are what is being used in the scoring, but I do think that number of balances reporting could be considered, given that "balance" (not possible to distinguish between PIF or interest-free or full on penalty interest) is available in the regular reports from my CC. I also theorize that paying before statement cuts results in no balance being available to indicate activity, where others think that the pay before statement cut shows activity... That I would like to see confirmed, thus my earlier post to ask for others to share their experience on the Slate dashboard.
If someone is thinking payments could be included in a FICO model, how would you get some indication in the model if payments were not explicity reported for years prior (or not reported even now by some CCC)? Step 1, Does the account have a balance reported on the statement? Check. Step 2, Is there a late payment reported? No? Then a payment was made on time for the account.
It may not be in the model (or not sussed out in testing) but it's simple enough to get to an estimate of payments.... unless the card is paid before statement cut.
As to your increase to 736, is it due to the number of cards managed to a very low number, or is it simply time for that score to be in range, given the age of the negatives?