Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Thursday, March 02, 2000 - 10:49 am  OK, I've been aware of my credit for a while, and about 2 years ago, I got in pretty deep. Let me explain. On 1-98, and 3-98 I was late over 30 days on 4 credit cards. Luckily, only 2 credit card companies reported it. I was late, because I was unorganized. Well, I learned my lesson. Unfortunately, School ended for me on 4-98, and I had no job, and no money. I actually couldn't even pay rent. Well, needless to say, on those same 4 credit cards, I went 60-days late, resulting in a bad mark on 6-98 on those same 2 credit cards (for some reason the other 2 cards didn't report me, but they certainly hiked the interest rates up.) I was about $5000 in debt on my CC's back then, had a car loan I was never late on (I knew to never have that one late), and studet loans that didn't start on repayment yet (about $16000). Well, Come June I got a job, and it payed well. I worked hard to pay stuff on time, and actually succeeded. Unfortunately, it seemed I owed the State of New Jersey about $200, in DMV fines, that I didn't know about (I was now living in CA) Well, I got a judgement against me in a court for the $200. As soon as I learned about it, I paid, but the judgement was already on my credit report unfortunately (12-98). Since then I have canceled 2 of my credit cards (the 2 that reported me back in 98). I have about $50 floating/ month on one of my credit cards, and about a total credit limit of $4500 on my cards. I can not get another decent credit card at all. How long do I have to wait until I can get a decent offer from a cc company again? It's been 2 years since I made my mistakes. Just wondering... -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 03, 2000 - 08:07 am Well, I did the e-loan score, and got a 647 with all the above. Is that good? -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 03, 2000 - 12:23 pm There was an interesting argument I read somewhere between members of Fair Isaac's staff over whether a person could increase their score by 100 points in a single year. Some of them said yes -- if a person is doing all the right things then they can up their score by 100 or more points in a year. Others said no that 100 points a year was too much to expect and virtually impossible for most people. Let's look at both possibilities and we'll try to speculate our way to an answer for you. First of all if you have a FICO score of 680 you should expect that you won't have too much trouble in getting a credit card -- although you should not expect any kind of premium pricing at that score. Since you currently have a 647 you're about 33 points shy of your goal. Let's say (on the optimistic side) that you could get 96 points in the next 12 months by simply paying your bills on time. That's about 8 points a month. The optimistic picture would place your score at 687 or so in another 5 months of paying on time, not opening any new accounts, not having any new inquiries and not charging up any large balances. Now let's consider the pessimistic side and say that you can get at most 48 points in the next 12 months, or an average of 4 points a month. In that case you could expect to have a score of 683 at the end of 9 months if you are careful to avoid all inquiries and pay everything on time. In conclusion I'd estimate that somewhere between 5 and 9 more months and you should be able to get basic credit cards again.
|
| | Friday, March 03, 2000 - 12:44 pm Get all the information you can: 1) Full credit report 2) The four reasons the bureaus give to lenders that your score is not higher Check the report for damaging errors and correct them. Look at the score after two months. Take action based on the four reasons the score is not higher. Repeat.
|
| | Friday, March 03, 2000 - 01:26 pm If you have inaccurate and harmful information you should definitely take action to correct it. I question the overall value of the reason codes for people with delinquencies. What if your top 2 reason codes have to do with your delinquencies? What do you do -- warp back in time and pay those bills on time instead of late? If the reason codes say you have too many inquiries do you warp back in time and warn yourself not to apply for that credit card or car loan? It's just not possible to un-inquire or un-pay late. The only thing that a reason code is likely to tell you that you could do something about is to say that you owe too much on your credit cards, that you have too many accounts with balances or that you have too many (or few) credit cards. Now if you have $10,000 in a savings account and you owe $10,000 on your credit cards and the codes say that you owe too much then you can easily fix that. Most people don't have hundreds or thousands of extra dollars just lying around to pay down/off their credit cards. Getting good credit is a lengthy process. I applied for the first credit card of my life in 12/97 and I was turned down for a secured credit card! I couldn't believe it. Today I'm enjoying a 1.9% introductory rate on a platinum Mastercard with a $5,000 limit. I've come a long way. I've got a long way to go.
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 04:08 am Don't stumble around in the dark and take guesses about what's wrong with your score. Sean said, "The only thing that a reason code is likely to tell you that you could do something about is to say that you owe too much on your credit cards, that you have too many accounts with balances or that you have too many (or few) credit cards." That's not true. Here is, at least, one more of the other things that affect your score that you could do something about: "Lack of recent installment loan information." See the reasons at http://www.advantagecredit.com/creditreporting/adverse_reason_codes.htm Sean: Why did you leave that one out? Is this your post, and is it your position regarding the law? http://www.creditinfocenter.com/discus/ Archives: No on HR2856 The more you talk about it, the more it will inform consumers.
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 04:11 am I think that the credit bureau's guidelines are fair. They suggest that when you pull a credit profile on a borrower and that borrower is there with you that you show them their credit profile. That you can show them their score. That you can explain to them what that score means to you. And that under no circumstances should you let them keep a copy of their profile or a copy of their score. What's so heinous about that?
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 04:59 am In what document are those guidelines?
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 05:21 am Greg, what's your score? What are the reasons why you don't score better?
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 05:48 am Sean: I don't have a compulsion to disclose that information to the world. In what document are those guidelines? If you produce that, I will discuss the "heinousness."
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 06:21 am Most of these documents aren't going to be found online. You could try https://www.transunion.com/tucNet/ You're always quick to post information on how someone should improve their credit profile. I'd like to measure the effectiveness of your advice. What was your credit score or credit position when you started learning about credit? What actions did you take to improve your credit picture? How much did those actions improve your credit profile/score? What score do you have as your goal? How long do you expect it will take until you reach that goal?
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 07:16 am Sean: The link you gave requires a password and the page instructs that, to get one, "First, you must be a current Trans Union customer." Stop wasting my time with wild goose chases. If anybody is "quick," it is you. As I have in this thread, I just respond to your wild claims. Why did you leave out, "Lack of recent installment loan information"? Stop trying to change the subject and answer the question. Even the credit bureaus can't tell someone how many credit cards to have-- or did you miss that on creditscoring.com? My idea is to get, at least, as much information as the credit bureaus release to potential creditors-- and that starts with the score (still not required that the bureaus (or anyone) release it to consumers). That and the reasons are about as good as it's going to get, right now. We have a difference of opinion in logic; yours isn't backed-up, and mine is. It is now proposed for deliberation in the legislature. That's what happens to disagreements like this: they go to the courts or the lawmakers. Your California legislature has a bill pending to release the reasons and score to the consumer. In case you didn't understand the last message: I'm not going to tell you my score, or anything about my personal financial life. Stop asking the same ridiculous question. What horrible thing will happen if the consumer gets his score and reasons?
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 12:31 pm Ok let's deal with the "lack of recent installment loan information." How many credit profiles do you personally know of where that was one of the reason codes? How many credit profiles do you personally know of where that was the top reason code? Assuming that it did turn up as one of the top reason codes what action would you recommend for the borrower to take? Now let's deal with scores disclosure. Let's say that a simple one-line law passes for all of California something along the lines of, "A consumer's credit score must be disclosed along with the rest of the profile whenever that disclosure is mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act." Problem 1: Which credit score? Will that include the risk codes? Problem 2: Who pays? Do we expect Fair Isaac to permit their scoring algorithm to be used for free? Or do we expect that Experian would end up paying the cost everytime a score is pulled? Problem 3: What if the disclosure mandates FICO II scoring and Fair Isaac comes out with a third generation model next year like they plan? You claim that your advice works. Who has followed your advice and successfully improved their credit profile? What was their initial score/credit profile? What is it now? How long did it take to improve their credit profile? What evidence do you have that your proposed suggestions have any kind of a positive effect?
|
| | Saturday, March 04, 2000 - 07:23 pm Sean: Again, the question is: Why did you leave out, "Lack of recent installment loan information"? By the same respect, I can ask if you "owe too much on your credit cards," then how much are you supposed to owe? That's a quote of you, not me. Stop trying to change the subject; stop backpedaling with cheap rhetoric, nonsense and fiddle-faddle, and answer the question. If you don't, the conversation is over. I want to know if you were lying, or just being incompetent.
|
| | Sunday, March 05, 2000 - 05:21 am Greg said: 'Sean said, "The only thing that a reason code is likely to tell you that you could do something about is to say that you owe too much on your credit cards, that you have too many accounts with balances or that you have too many (or few) credit cards." ' (emphasis added). I should greatly enjoy hearing what you think a person could do if that was their reason code. I claim that there is little, if anything, that a person could do to solve that problem. Short of arranging a class-action lawsuit against the credit grantor what do you recommend? Greg said: 'I can ask if you "owe too much on your credit cards," then how much are you supposed to owe?' I've pulled credit profiles on people who've had 61% of their credit available (that's 39% used for that mathematically challenged) and there's been indications from their reasons codes that they owe too much in comparison to their balances. Fair Isaac has done studies about the average credit usage of people who recently obtained new credit. Their findings: 'The average person who obtains new credit has 11 obligations on their credit profile. Of those obligations 7 are credit cards and 4 are installment loans. 'More than 60% of those approved for new credit have never been late on any obligation in the past 7 years. 'Also 54% of consumers carry less than $5,000 of debt. This includes all credit cards, lines of credit, and loans-everything but mortgages. 'The typical consumer has access to $12,190 on all credit cards combined. More than half of all people with credit cards are using less than 30% of their total credit card limit. 'The average consumer's oldest obligation is 13 years old, indicating that he or she has been managing credit for some time. When someone applies for a loan or a new credit card account — in short, any time one applies for credit and a lender requests a copy of the credit report — this request is noted as an "inquiry" in the applicant's credit file. The average consumer has had only one inquiry on his or her accounts within the past year.'
|
| | Sunday, March 05, 2000 - 07:48 am Sean made a statement containing a half-truth, then squirms (and can't answer the question) when called on it. For good entertainment, perform a word keyword search of his name on this site, and see all his other statements. It's just another day at the office for proponents of secrecy regarding credit scoring-- the main secret: your score itself. Not much is known about the system, and know-it-alls have had a field day yakking about it-- thinking that nobody can prove them wrong. But they can't prove themselves right, either. The worst of these boastful, swaggering, know-nothings, however, is the one that carelessly disregards what little IS known about scoring-- or lies about it. The confusing answers are all boilerplate by now; if you search, you will hear the same weak arguments over and over. Like, "Pray tell, WHICH score are you talking about?" Or, "Your score, alone, will do you no good." Or, "Don't concentrate on the score, just pay your bills on time." And the all-time, grey-haired guy-in-a-suit sitting-behind-a big-desk classic: "Use credit wisely." The truth, of course, is that, in order to know if your score is getting better or worse, you would have to, at least, be able to access the score. Right now, the law says you don't have that right. It's enough to make you double over laughing. Here are the answers to Sean's ridiculous, time-wasting questions. Sean said: I question the overall value of the reason codes for people with delinquencies. What if your top 2 reason codes have to do with your delinquencies? What do you do -- warp back in time and pay those bills on time instead of late? If the reason codes say you have too many inquiries do you warp back in time and warn yourself not to apply for that credit card or car loan? What if your top 2 reason codes have to do with your delinquencies? Then don't pay late again. But, the other two could deal with having too many accounts. Of course, you can't know how many accounts to have either (the device used on creditscoring.com to prove how poor the scoring system is). But at least you'll know that's one of the reasons, and can, at least, take a guess. Closing one account, or opening ten accounts may have the desired result: increasing the score by enough to get the loan. Then, again, it might not. It is, indeed, quite a dilemma: the bureaus can say you have too many or too few, but they sure can't tell you how many to have. But I sure don't need some blowhard mortgage banker or real estate agent telling me how to make my score higher. Having access to the score and reasons doesn't mean they know anything about how the score is calculated. I'd sooner TAKE THAT GUESS myself, given the chance. So, what's the point of getting the score and the reasons if you can't be sure what effect your actions will have? To show the public just how bizarre the system is. This isn't JUST about getting the score and the reasons the score is not higher (which are given to bankers, but not to consumers). This is about exposing the entire system, and shaping it to serve consumers better. Forcing the bureaus to release the score means that consumers will ask even more questions-- and the issue will take on a life of its own. The jig is up. Now let's deal with scores disclosure. Let's say that a simple one-line law passes for all of California something along the lines of, "A consumer's credit score must be disclosed along with the rest of the profile whenever that disclosure is mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act." Which credit score? The broad-based risk credit bureau score used for conventional, FHA, VA, and non-conforming mortgages. Will that include the risk codes? Yes. Whatever the bankers get, I get. Who pays? The consumer-- for the slightly higher amount of paper and ink it takes to print the score and reasons, and for the infinitesimal amount of electricity and data processing to calculate the score. The bureaus already get $8.50 for a computer print-out when a consumer requests a copy of his report. And, I haven't heard they're going broke. Do we expect Fair Isaac to permit their scoring algorithm to be used for free? Yes. But if it will make you feel any better, I'll give them a dollar. That's a half-billion dollars a year if every consumer in the United States gets his score once. I think they could make it happen on that. But, they're not worried about the cost. They're worried about people asking questions and making them prove their score is valid. Their secrecy gambit was doomed from the beginning. Or do we expect that Experian would end up paying the cost everytime a score is pulled? I'm sure the British bean-counters can come up with a reasonable solution. Then, again, read my email correspondence with them. Not an exactly logical and cooperative lot. You claim that your advice works. Who has followed your advice and successfully improved their credit profile? What was their initial score/credit profile? What is it now? How long did it take to improve their credit profile? What evidence do you have that your proposed suggestions have any kind of a positive effect? I claim that my advice works? No, I don't. To claim that it works, I would first have to give it. The central theme of creditscoring.com is that blowhards, know-it-alls, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen have taken this issue for a big ride-- and have had a lot of fun with it. But even the credit bureaus can't even tell me how many credit cards to have. When those selling the scores can't even explain them, that's proof enough for me that something is wrong. So, knowing that, I would not be so silly and full of hot air as to try to explain how it works. Fair Isaac has done studies about the average credit usage of people who recently obtained new credit. We've been over this. I don't care about average credit usage. I want to know how to make my score the highest-- not average. Average scores get average deals.
|
| | Sunday, March 05, 2000 - 11:00 am As always you are purposefully obtuse. The end result of the legislation proposed for California is that one or more credit bureaus will try to provide the Fair Isaac score without paying Fair Isaac for it. Fair Isaac will object in court and obtain a preliminary injunction and it will be 10+ years before the California Supreme Court will get around to ruling that the statute is, for some reason, unconstitutional. I've already seen it happen with California's Roberti-Roos law of 1989 that still hasn't been reviewed by the California Supreme Court to determine which portions of it will be ruled unconstitutional (lower courts having invalidated one portion or another of it in a most inconsistant way). I also note your extended rant on having access to your score and the reason codes. But you still didn't bother to answer the question: 1. What do you recommend a person should do if one of their reason codes is lack of recent installment information? 2. What do you recommend a person should do if they are turned down for a credit card and one of their reason codes is "too few revolving accounts"? You don't get it, Greg. You make it out like having good credit is a complex, mysterious and impossible to obtain goal that is a zealously guarded secret by anonymous Fair Isaac board members as they sneer at their visitors through a cloud of cigar smoke. Having good credit is easy! Just find someone who has good credit and do what they do. If you don't like my advice call up Voigtkampff's friend who has an 799 score and have her tell you her secrets.
|
| | Sunday, March 05, 2000 - 02:22 pm Apparently, the U.S. Congress and California Senate are just wasting their time, if you are to believe Sean's expert jurisprudence. He thinks this is much ado about nothing. It does beg the question, though: why would he spend so much time debating it if it is a moot point? And why would he compare it to an assault weapon control act, of all things? Could it be that that was the only thing handy? Is he just a good cutter-and-paster-- a compulsive, stream-of-consciousness poster who doesn't consider the possible ramifications of his statements which don't pass the logic test? Does he think normal, rational, independent thinkers won't review his messages and think he does a great job of talking himself into corners? Why does he keep asking the same questions over and over again, when I have already answered them by saying I have no idea what the absolute correct answer is-- and neither do the companies I am criticizing? Indeed, why does he ask those questions when I spent months asking them to make the point that the the people selling the scores can't even tell one how many cards to have? A logical person would say that if they saw that they have a lack of recent installment information, they would, at least, get one installment account. But, really, do they need more than one? Two? Five? Seven-hundred ninety-eight? Will anybody tell the consumer? No. What do you say to a person who keeps asks a question that is impossible to answer: "What do you recommend a person should do if they are turned down for a credit card and one of their reason codes is 'too few revolving accounts'?" Common sense tells a person to get at least one secured credit card. But should they get two (or two dozen)? Unfortunately, if you can't have the reasons your score is not higher, you won't know what to do. And if you can't have the score so you can check it once every six months, you won't know if what you are doing is heading you in the right direction, or down the tubes. So, what is the point of the argument of the person who keeps asking me the same questions, over and over, again, and who says I haven't answered them, when I have (in fact, with an entire web site)(the answer is: nobody knows)? Cheap spin-- thrown together to take up shelf space.
|
| | Sunday, March 05, 2000 - 06:20 pm I've often found that the stronger a person's logical argument is the less often he needs to resort to ad hominem attacks. Now on to the point at hand -- lack of recent installment loan information. Since you obviously don't understand what this reason code means let me explain it to you. Imagine that you obtained a car loan through high-risk finance in 10/98 and they report your credit history through 11/99 and then they stop. Today you go out and apply for a credit card. Since the last time your one and only tradeline was updated was 11/1/99 you've got 4 months worth of reporting that hasn't been transmitted to the credit bureau. This would be referred to as a lack of recent installment loan information and I can assure you that getting a new installment loan is not the solution, nor is two new, nor five, nor 798.
|
| | Sunday, March 05, 2000 - 10:35 pm Sean, you should stick to helping people with personalized advice. You are good at that. When it comes to discussing the major issues, you don't do very well-- You alienate people by coming across as a company sales rep for Fair Isaac or Equifax. Greg, you are extremely knowledgeable about the issues, but you are clearly not interested in helping people solve their personal problems. You provide excellent arguments and information when it comes to discussing the larger issues, but you have zero ability when it comes to helping people on an individual basis. Everyone has their gifts and everyone has their shortcomings. Sean and Greg, don't you think it's about time you recognize your own? Greg runs circles around Sean when it comes to larger issues, and Sean excels when it comes to advising people on a personal level. Need I say more?
|
| | Monday, March 06, 2000 - 04:14 am The broadcaster's principle: even if you're not sure the pronunciation you're using is correct, say it with confidence. It works for people who really don't know credit scoring systems, too. The argument and evidence of whether one should make false statements is not ad hominem. IT is the discussion, not scoring. If an installment loan lender stopped reporting, or if the loan is paid, the results are the same: lack of recent installment loan information. Even if Sean's premise is true, the first step in taking action to increase a score would be to have the information. If the loan is paid, there is only one choice: get a new loan, or two... or two-hundred. But, the question is about whether there is something one could do about the score if they knew what was wrong. Lack of recent installment loan information could be one of he top four reasons a score is not higher... or not, but the only way a consumer would know that would be: (guess what? here it is again) having access to the score and reasons. Sean said, "The only thing that a reason code is likely to tell you that you could do something about is to say that you owe too much on your credit cards, that you have too many accounts with balances or that you have too many (or few) credit cards." Since he has convinced himself that he is correct about the installment loan information question, here is yet another reason he left out of his statement about things over which you have control: Consumer finance accounts. OK, one more: Number of established accounts (a different reason than "Too many accounts with balances"). Alright, here's another: Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high. Let's watch-- and pay close attention to the comeback. This is hilarious. Anonymous: You have been duped. If anybody says they have the answers about what actions to take to increase your score (other than the obvious: make timely payments), run away. You're right about him sticking to personalized advice; but he shouldn't do it in public, he gets nailed every time. It's more akin to late-night TV psychics. Elsewhere on this message board, he says that one of his scores is a 701. Adequate, but not stellar performance-- given the confidence of his statements.
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 04:05 am First of all, Greg -- I'm not ashamed of a score of 701. It's not all that I hoped for, but it ain't hay either. Secondly reading your comment I've suddenly become confused. Are you still arguing your same point or are you suddenly agreeing with me that the reason codes aren't as useful as people might originally think? If a person has a reason code of "Number of revolving accounts" or "Number of established accounts" I don't think that anyone can derive a better plan of action with that information than they could without it. Similarly if their reason code is "Too many consumer finance accounts" I don't think that information is particularly actionable. Other than warping back in time and telling yourself not to do business with that company there is little that can be done. There are few genuinely actionable reason codes. "No recent revolving balances" might be one of them. "Amount owed on accounts is too high" is another. Finally, I wish to point out that everyone has access to their reason codes if they are turned down for credit. Most companies automatically inform you the reasons why you didn't do better while others want you to send them a request in the mail before they will.
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 04:33 am I read these threads for the shear enjoyment of the argument. However, in the 21 messages posted within this thread, I have found zero return on investment for the casual visitor. I find only egotistical arguements made in vain attempts to prove who is the superior deliberator with no attempt to actually provide real assistance. Constantly repeating questions such as "what is your score?" and "what should I do for this reason code?" does nothing but entertain. Want a better score? Pay your damn bills on time, don't run your outstanding balances up to your credit limits, don't over extend yourself, don't apply for too much credit in a short period of time and occasionally pull your reports to make sure it's only YOUR data on YOUR report. Did I mention that it IS entertaining ...
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 08:37 am Anonymous has reached the same conclusion as creditscoring.com: credit scoring is folly which cannot be explained by those who sell the scores, let alone those who use them. The ubiquitous Sean has helped to prove that, again. Are there things a consumer could do to increase his score if he had the reasons and score (and I, for one, am not going to rely on some hack lender to give them to me-- I'll go to the source of the problem or, "SOLUTIONS," as they would like to call it (see the home page at www.fairisaac.com))? Since all the credit bureaus have been able to say with regard to increasing one's score are things like "pay your bills," I'll take my chances using my own instincts, and I am surely not going to take the advice of anybody else (and would not be so presumptuous, arrogant and audacious as to give advice on how to increase someone else's score). I have proven that nobody can possibly know exactly what effects their advice is going to have. The best a consumer can do is: get, at least, the information the lender has (and is using to determine your fate), and take a guess as to what to do with it. That's as good as it gets. I'll repeat what I said for the person who didn't see it above: Get all the information you can: That's my final answer, Regis. Yes, I'm sure. I don't have any Lifelines left, so that's got to be it. Yes, that's my answer, and I'm sticking with it. Really. I swear. That's it. Period. THE END. I'm signing off. Over and out. One goal of creditscoring.com is to force the release of the score so the consumer who obtains it asks questions. The answers are impossible to give, given the current system-- even the experts can't tell a person, positively, what actions to take to increase the score. Then, the public outcry will take this issue to the next level of forcing the bureaus to explain their rationale in evaluating people using this number. Then, the consumer may have a chance. Until then, it's the status quo. Blowhards. Guessing. That's entertainment.
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 12:50 pm On 4/21/99 my score was pulled and I had a 645. On 2/29/00 my score was pulled and I had a 701. Maybe I can't prove that what I'm advising is correct. But it sure ain't hurting me either. I still think we should ask Voigtkampff's friend with the 799 score to give us a few pieces of advice on how to have a good score.
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 01:08 pm She won't let my post the whole report. Besides I don't have a scanner and I wouldn't know how to use it if I did. But she will let me see a recent credit report. Tell me what you want to know from the report. And be nicer to each other. I hate to broadcast my ignorance, but how good is 799? What is the best? I thought it was 850 but don't recall the source of that memory.
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 02:38 pm No one is quite sure what the upper limit is on FICO scores. A 799 is very, very good. I know of only one person that has scored better with an 805. That person had 8 credit cards, 4 apartment building mortgages, one personal residence mortgage and two car loans, no inquiries and had never been late on anything. She works for Washington Mutual. I'd be interested to know: 1. What is the oldest account she has (what date)? 2. How many credit cards does she have? 3. How much total does she owe on all credit cards? 4. How much is the total of all of her credit card limits? 5. Am I correct in recalling that she has zero installment loans? 6. How many inquiries does she have in the past 12 months? 7. Has she ever been late on anything?
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 04:19 pm I'm as nice as I should be, given the false statements. I could leave the (suspicious) statement, "No one is quite sure what the upper limit is on FICO scores," but I can't. Too blatant an effort. From the horse's mouth: In the Fair, Isaac credit bureau systems, which is probably what you've got in mind, the range is from somewhere in the low 300's to something close to 900. http://www.creditscoring.com/pages/forumtranscript.htm#page235
|
| | Tuesday, March 07, 2000 - 07:23 pm Let the record show Greg admitted that Peter McCorkell, Vice President and General Counsel of Fair, Isaac & Company, Inc., either did not or could not specify the what the upper or lower limit was on a FICO score.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 05:24 am Sean: How did you gain access to your score on 4/21/99?
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 06:23 am I applied for a mortgage. My score was pulled. The mortgage broker informed me there was little he could do to improve my loan rate (I'm at 10%) with the score I had. He said I had a 645.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 07:07 am You posted your credit report. Is the mortgage loan on it? What is the name of the thread?
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 08:01 am You can find my credit report and look at the inquiries. You will see that there is an inquiry placed by ADSI/Credit Reports (Arizona) on it. That is the inquiry on which I was told my score. As for my mortgages neither of them are reported. I make my payments to: Advantage Loan Servicing 9121 Oakdale Ave Chatsworth, CA (818) 341-0818 If you are so anxious to check out my story I suggest you call there and ask for Judy Dryer. I recommend you ask: 1. Do they collect payments for any loans held by Kyle Pieroni? 2. Do they report to credit bureaus? Of course, if you knew my name you could ask if she knew me. But I'm not interested in compromising my privacy to that extent.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 08:42 am I don't plan on spending any money on long distance calls to verify something inconsequential. It is unfortunate that the system is skewed by your mortgage company not reporting about you. That means your score doesn't reflect your true risk. The system is nowhere near perfect, is it? Who is Kyle Pieroni? Who is Sean R. Feral?
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 09:21 am It is certainly true that my credit report is incomplete. For example when I was first beginning to build my credit I was preapproved for a Texaco card, which I got. After a few months I noticed it wasn't showing up on my credit profiles and I called about it. They don't report ... unless, of course, you become seriously delinquent. Then they report. I closed the card. I also have a card with Axsys National Bank with a $1,500 limit and I owe nothing on that card. Accordingly my ratio of debt to high credit limits is off. Also I have two privately-held mortgages that I pay on, which do not and never will show up on my credit profile. These mortgages are a result of purchasing condominiums from Kyle Pieroni on which he carried back a promissory note in lieu of cash. And I'll let you call me Sean ... if you want.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 09:53 am I just wanted to make that clear. So, you have never borrowed from a mortgage lending company? Were your applications denied? What should your ratio be?
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 10:08 am I'll be glad to answer all your questions, Greg. But first, I have some questions of my own. Did you use eLoan to determine your score? What score did it show? Have you ever borrowed from a mortgage lending comany? What actions have you taken to try to improve your score? Were they effective?
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 10:16 am As I've said before, I wouldn't talk about those types of things. If that's a condition of this conversation, then it is over. don't be ridiculous. You, on the other hand, have posted your credit report. If you don't want to discuss your personal financial situation, then don't use it to make points. The "ratio" question isn't personal, if that's your point.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 01:07 pm If I could snap my fingers and have all that information appear my ratio of debt to credit limits would be right around 31.1 percent, which is probably sliver too high but I'm okay with it. But I'm hesitant to say that if that information was all included that my score would go up. I'm sure that Axsys (formerly Fingerhut) would be considered a consumer finance account. That could have an unknown negative effect on my credit profile.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 02:28 pm I won't bother you again, so you have a chance to review your statments and questions above for continuity, and answer the questions.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 03:07 pm I have never borrowed from a mortgage lending company. I find them to be far too stiff in what they will and will not accept. Just last month I got a letter in the mail offering me a credit card at 1.9% introductory rate and $11.1% (variable) final rate. They knew my score and they wanted me to state my income. I accepted and they gave me a $5,000 line of credit. This is a completely unsecured loan. It's only predicated on my promise to pay. However, if I go into a bank and try to purchase a $80,000 house and ask for an $80,000 loan they will refuse me. Even though the loan is 100% secured by real property that's just "too risky" for them. Not only do they want me to shell out at least $8,000 cash out of my pocket, they want me to purchase private mortgage insurance -- insurance that won't pay me a dime regardless. It will only pay THEM if something goes wrong. Now the credit card company was willing to accept it when I wrote down $27,000 a year but the mortgage lender will not. Oh heck no -- they expect me to provide them with W-2s, 2-year's worth of tax returns and 12-months of bank statements. Then they'll give me a loan and claim it's 9% interest (no cool 1.9% introductory period for them, heck no). Despite their 9% claim there's a 1.5 points up-front fee (not counting closing costs). Considering that the average family sells or refinances every 7 years that makes my rate much closer to 9.3 percent. Then they'll want an operating statement from me every year to ensure that I'm getting enough cash flow AND I'll have to pay for property insurance that is to their liking. Nah, it's too much hoops to have to jump through to get a mortgage. What I really need is a $1M revolving line of credit at 9.9% interest and I'll just charge the properties I want to buy.
|
| | Thursday, March 09, 2000 - 06:13 pm I hear that people who are qualified get low-rate conventional loans every day. Isn't that the type of deal Mr. Pieroni got? Or did he do even better than that? Above you said, "I applied for a mortgage. My score was pulled. The mortgage broker informed me there was little he could do to improve my loan rate (I'm at 10%) with the score I had. He said I had a 645." It wasn't really clear that you didn't take the loan (or have one with a company to begin with). So, that was for a refinance? Now I understand why your're so sensitive about the word "assumption." You had to have somebody else get the mortgage loan (so you could "assume" it). So Pieroni's rate is 10%? Why so high? Or is his lower and he's charging you? How big was his down payment? There should be more guys like him willing to give others a chance, eh? Are there actually lenders servicing Fannie Mae qualified loans that ask for an operating statement once a year? Is that in the conventional contract?
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 04:37 am You're leaping to conclusions, Greg. Here's the situation: The condominium I first bought was owned by this nice couple and they bought it for $70,000. Then the market took a hit and suddenly it was worth a lot less. After awhile they walked away and the bank took it back through foreclosure. The bank sold it to Kyle Pieroni for $13,000. He paid all cash and fixed it up. Then he went to sell it. He was asking $39,900. It sat on the market for awhile. Every month expenses accrued on it like homeowner's dues so he changed his terms. He owned it free and clear so he was willing to finance anyone who bought it. In 11/96 I wandered through and looked at it. It seemed nice. I offered him $37,400.00 for the property and he would finance me at 7.5 percent interest. He had put down on the listing sheet that the homeowner's dues were $160. Problem comes up -- the homeowner's dues are actually $207 because there's a special assessment on the property to pay for repairs that were conducted immediately after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The amount of the special assessment was $5,520 and that's what caused the higher payments. So now I'm upset because I predicated my offer based on the idea that the homeowner's dues were $160 and my calculation of how much I could get from a renter. He told his Realtor that it was "customary" that the Buyer assumes the special assessments so I have to take them. The escrow company says there's nothing in the escrow agreements about it so the escrow gets held up. Ok so we agree to sit down and discuss the situation. I say I'm willing to assume the special assessment of $5,520 if he'll drop the purchase price by $5,520 (for a sale price of $31,880). He isn't happy about that, but he finally agrees if I'll raise my payment the amount of the difference (about $47). We crunch some numbers and round off to 10 percent as a reasonable number. So then I go out to refinance my $31,880 condo in a year or so. First place tells me that my minimum closing costs are going to be $3,000. Now who cares if you're refinancing a $150,000 mortgage if you have $3,000 in closing costs but on a $31,880 mortgage that's a huge percentage. Secondly since I'm not living in it they wanted to use their non-owner occupied rates, which are higher, and they wanted me to have 75 percent LTV, which I didn't have -- I had 80 LTV. And then my credit was only 645 anyways and they're asking me for all these tax returns and W2s and crap. Finally the guy mentioned to me, "Oh yeah, I'm not licensed in California only in Arizona and New Mexico so I'm doing this through a friend that's licensed in your area..." So I figured I'd cut out the middle man and I got his friend's number and gave him a call. He told me that it really wasn't worth my time to refinance. With the amount of savings that I would get on the lower interest rate it would take me years to recover the $3,000 I'd have to pay to refinance the property. That's when I tried to get creative along the lines of "What if I buy another property in the same complex to live in and I encumbered both of those units with a blanket mortgage, wouldn't that raise the loan amount to $60,000 and therefore the $3,000 minimum closing costs wouldn't hurt as much? And since I was living in it, wouldn't that qualify me for the lower, owner-occupied rates?" Way too creative for a banker. They don't want blanket mortgages. So now I'm just negotiating with my tenant to purchase it and I want to 1031 the equity into another, larger property. And yes, Greg -- if you own an income property then the lender is going to want to see your rent rolls every year and an accurate statement of all your assets and liabilities.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 08:28 am Man, are you slick. About that conventional contract requiring a yearly operating statement, though: Is that in the conventional (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) contract (note), or in any other documents one has to sign to obtain a conventional loan? Do you have the document name, or, at least, the verbiage?
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 08:42 am [I'm transferring this conversation to: BayHouse Real Estate, Finance and Credit Forum: Credit: CATEGORY: Discussions on Morality, Ethics, Consumer Protection and Misc.: Sean vs. Greg: Rental property income statement]
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |