Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Friday, December 03, 1999 - 02:08 pm  I have very bad credit and am finally trying to repair and/or pay it. I have been told by a collection agency that, "Your credit is a negative 9 out of 10, because you have a charge off on it." They said that a 10 would be bankruptcy. Is this number system true? Do credit agencies rate you on a negative scale of 1 to 10 if your bad? Or is it that each different negative thing is a different number? Or is it all just baloney? If it is true, what does everything from 1 to 9 represent? Could you please help me with this one?
|
| | Sunday, December 05, 1999 - 06:04 am I have never heard of such BS. It is amazing what some of the pond-scum will tell you in order to force your hand. Even with a charge-off on my credit report, I was still able to get a mortgage, I just had to pay it first. Don't listen to that schmuck. Just take your time and make your best possible deal to pay it.
|
| | Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 11:32 am After applying for a second mortgage recently, I was told that these loans are almost entirely score driven and that I did not meet the minumum score requirements. I'm only about 29 points away. The creditor said that I probably had 50 inquiries over the last 2 years and that without the inquiries my score would be in the high 6's or low 700's. My credit is also maxed out. AS I know that both these factors are keeping my scores down, does this sound right. Are the inquiries the main factor? If so, and I do not apply for more credit, how long before I could get the 29 points I need? Also, how can I get a detailed trimerge report with my scores?
|
| | Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 03:32 pm I think you would be better off getting a report from each of the credit bureaus. It will cost a little more but it will be more accurate. My husband and I have used a couple of the companies available on the internet and they didn't report all of the stuff that was actually on our credit reports. You can get info on the credit bureaus vcr.org which has a link to Bayhouse. Good luck.
|
| | Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 05:24 pm Eric: It's far more likely that the maxed out credit cards are pulling your score down than the inquiries. Definitely try to avoid inquiries. Try to pay down your credit cards, if you can. Many credit card companies review you for a limit increase every six months, so getting those limit increases will help your credit cards not be so maxed out. Good luck.
|
| | Sunday, December 19, 1999 - 12:09 pm Eric: What Sean left out was the answer to your question about getting the scores. The law allows the bureaus to keep it a secret from you and they do. This is from his post from another forum: "Nothing is necessarily wrong with you knowing your score but there IS a big problem involved with you having your score in writing from a credit reporting agency. Having your credit profile complete with a score is everything a credit grantor needs to know to issue you a line of credit. It will be very possible for you to run around with your credit report and score and get approved places. Businesses may even like this, at first, because it will mean that they don't have to pay to pull a credit report on you. Best of all if you get turned down, so what? You can just keep looking for a place that will issue you credit based on your borderline score. Perhaps you will even find dozens of companies willing to issue you a credit line based on that score. You will be able to avoid having inquiries added to your score. One lender won't know you've applied with 10 or 20 others before him. He won't know that 4 of them have already given you new credit lines. Is this fair to the lender?" http://www.creditinfocenter.com/discus/messages/46/53.html?ThursdayDecember919991106am For some real fun, be sure to see the responses to his statement. Even though he has not seen your report (which includes the top four reasons your score is not higher), he gives telepathic advice, ignoring the other two factors, or the accuracy of your report. Don't believe the advice; find out for yourself. Ask the lender for a copy of the report(s) with the scores. They may or may not give it to you; there are contracts not divulge the scores, but some users are sympathetic to this issue. Also, get your reports (they won't have the scores) directly from the national credit bureaus and review them for accuracy. A 1996 press release from the author of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Senator Richard Bryan, states, "Errors in consumer credit reports have been the number one item of complaint at the Federal Trade Commission." When I asked for my score from Equifax, they told me, "Your most important action would be to maintain a good credit history and get copies of your credit report to make sure this history is accurately reflected" and "More important than any "scoring" is the accuracy of your credit file. All items on your file may affect a credit grantors decision. If any item on your file is incorrect then that also may affect your 'score'. "http://creditscoring.com/letters/equifax.htm Sounds like they have a big accuracy problem, and if there is even one inaccurate item on your report, it could affect the score, keeping you from getting the loan. The ridiculous part of this is, that once you have corrected their mis-report of you, you have no right to view the corresponding change to your score. As for Sean's advice about getting more credit: guess what three-digit number they use to evaluate that. "Good luck" is not a factor.
|
| | Monday, December 20, 1999 - 06:26 am Greg: The guy said his credit is "maxed out." I don't know what this term means to you or to anyone else, but to me it means 100% credit utilization. The most heavily weighted factor in a person's risk score is their past history of payment and the second most heavily weighted factor is the percent utilization of revolving credit. The best thing this guy could do would be to pay however many thousands of dollars are necessary to bring his debt obligations down to reasonable levels. Most likely, however, he doesn't have thousands available to bring his debt obligations to managable levels. That makes him a bad credit risk, and no amount of tinkering with his inquiries or number of revolving accounts is going to bring that into line.
|
| | Monday, December 20, 1999 - 11:17 am Thanks for the responses. Lets say that I get a $5000 tax return, do you think my scores would be more positively affected by paying down multiple accounts as compared to paying off say 2 accounts in full?
|
| | Monday, December 20, 1999 - 01:57 pm I'd recommend paying as many accounts off entirely as possible, catering to the possibility that you might have too many accounts with balances. There is no adverse action code for too few accounts with balances. It might not have any greater effect than just generally paying everything down, but it certainly won't have a worse effect. As a side note, you might just want to pay the higher interest rate cards down. That makes the most financial sense for the long term.
|
| | Monday, December 20, 1999 - 07:46 pm Sean: On on your Big List of Credit Bureau Risk Score Factor Reason Codes, what is #45? Eric: When I started looking into credit scoring, I found a new world full of possibilities for people (including loan "officers") on which to give advice and on which guess and speculate. Be careful not to ask too many questions and try to figure out the system. As Equifax said, "... we're not running a game show. I mean, we're evaluating risk. We're not trying to have people get--achieve the highest score." As Fair, Isaac put it, "And so we want to score your behavior. We don't want you altering your behavior to change the score, what I think Beth described as okay, I took the prep course for the SATs, and so I don't know anything more now, but I'm just a better test taker. We don't want to have consumers trying to alter their behavior in short term ways that will --regularly has nothing to do with their long term credit risk. And we don't want to get into that discussion with consumers." http://creditscoring.com/letters/equifax.htm http://www.creditscoring.com/pages/forumtranscript.htm What are your scores on the reports which were used? What are the four reasons the scores weren't higher for the respective scores?
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 03:10 am My scores are a reflection of new but not over extended spending habits thanks to a new job. Since I got this job, I did go out and open several new accounts and bought a house as well. Although these actions may seem extreme, I have always lived within my means and I still do so. When I mentioned my credit was maxed out, I only mean the accounts are maxed out mostly since they are new (most accounts are not credit cards, they are signature type loans). I still feel that I am being treated unfairly by the system when it does not take into account the fact that I make three times the salary I made last year. Since I opened the accounts, my scores have fallen from almost 700 to very low 600's. The common reason on all reports is high balances, number of inquiries, and past delinquencies which occured over 5 years ago (collections which are paid). What is worse, no matter the circumstance, creditors who rely on the scoring system no longer look personally at your credit or so they tell me. I'm told that the extension of credit is entirely score driven as far as credit reports are concerned. I started posting on this forum to get input from others on the subject as well as voice some of my own frustrations with the system. Despite all the input I have received, no one has convinced me that it is not unfair that someone can rate your credit and extend or deny credit based upon a system that you are not freely entitled to know about or obtain more pertinant information about (as compared to generalized information). It also upsets me that Fair Isaac can say that the consumer has no need for the score and thus that is the main reason for not making it available. This entire subject I'm sure has a two sided argument but I sure have a difficult time understanding the other side, especially when it affects myself.
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 04:32 am If the problem is just that you've opened several new accounts, got low initial limits, and charged them up near the limits then just six months of paying well would solve most of your problems. You could expect your score to increase as your old derogatories get older. After six months of paying well most revolving accounts get limit increases. Six months of credit inactivity would help your inquiry problem. I know you said you have 50 inquiries in the last 2 years ... would you happen to know how many in the last 12 months? Inquiries that are more than 12 months old don't affect your score. Other than just waiting for the situation to improve your best bet to improve your score is to pay down debt. Sorry.
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 07:40 am Greg: Sorry, I have misplaced the big list from Fair, Isaac but I do have a TUC credit report here and on that list there isn't a code 45. Codes on that list go from 00-42 but there is also a 50, a 56 and a 97-99. For your reference see this site (http://www.advantagecredit.com/creditreporting/adverse_reason_codes.htm) and then add the following codes: 31 Amount Owed on Delinquent Accounts 32-35 (N/A) 36 Payments due on accounts. 37 (N/A) 38 Serious delinquency and public record or collection filed. 39 Serious delinquency. 40 Derogatory public record or collection filed. 41 No recent retail balances. 42 Length of time since most recent consumer finance company account established. 43-49 (N/A) 50 Lack of recent retail account information. 51-55 (N/A) 56 Amount owed on retail accounts. 57-96 (N/A) 97 Lack of recent auto loan information. 98 Length of time consumer finance company loans have been established. 99 Lack of recent consumer finance company account information. Note that many of these codes are used only on specific industry options, such as code 97 only occurs if you pull the Emperica-Auto score. I had a list of all these industry-option specific codes, but I have misplaced it. Sorry.
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 09:07 am Thrill Seekers: What is Greg talking about? Isn't it odd that Sean "misplaced" The Big List? Why does he spend so much time answering questions that weren't asked? Will we get the exact four reasons, in order, assigned by each CRA from Eric? Will Eric get his scores after he takes action on his reports? Will he get the loan? Wellllllllllllllllllllllllll! Stay glued to this monitor!
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 10:52 am BFD, I misplaced the Big List. You want a "Big List" of your own? Call Fair Isaac at (800) 777-2066 and select option 2, they'll fax you your own big list.
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 05:39 pm Don't cuss at him, Sean. He's just the booth announcer. The recording says that option 2 is for mortgage lenders or brokers. What are they hiding from consumers?
|
| | Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 04:41 am Sean: Have you found your Big List yet?
|
| | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 01:07 am What determines your beacon score and what ways are there to increase your beacon score?
|
| | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 02:08 am Anonymous: I asked the same questions. See the hilarious results at http://creditscoring.com/pages/letters.htm. The case of an innocent consumer seeking an answer turns into a mysterious, far-reaching unanswered question: "What is Code 45?" (hint: not a brand of beer-- although it sounds like it if you say it while drunk). Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion in this thread!
|
| | Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 06:18 am And, now-- the exciting conclusion. Code 45 is "Too few accounts with balances."
|
| | Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 10:19 am Code 45 is "Too Few Accounts With Balances" only on the Uni-Quote model and is not used by Emperica.
|
| | Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 11:20 am But Sean, previously in this thread, you said, "There is no adverse action code for too few accounts with balances." That's not true, if by "adverse action code" you mean credit bureau risk score factor reason codes. For what is the "Uni-Quote" model used? What else did you leave out?
|
| | Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 01:42 pm UniQuote is a service mark of Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc. It is designed to work on the triple merged reports where the information from all reports was blended together and a statistically validated master score would be obtained for all reports. UniQuote was never popular. Instead people would obtain three scores and pick the middle one according to FNMA and FHLMC guidelines. UniQuote is not Y2K compliant and Fair Isaac made the decision not to invest time and resources to make UniQuote Y2K compliant. The model has been discontinued.
|
| | Thursday, January 13, 2000 - 03:48 am Sean: When did they discontinue it?
|
| | Thursday, January 13, 2000 - 10:44 am UniQuote was officially discontinued in October of 1999, but it was (as models go) pretty much dead when FNMA and FHLMC endorsed the Beacon, Emperica and Experian-FICO model as the standard for the secondary market. UniQuote was designed specifically to predict mortgage delinquency. Barely a handful of people used it. On a related note Fair Isaac is updating their lender FAQ sheet soon and I hope to see more information and accuracy obtained when that is out.
|
| | Friday, January 14, 2000 - 07:39 am When did you learn of UniQuote's demise?
|
| | Friday, January 14, 2000 - 08:41 am I knew UniQuote was almost never used for months, but the above posted details I got over the phone within the past week.
|
| | Sunday, January 16, 2000 - 03:48 pm Sean: Trans Union lists UniQuote at http://www.transunion.com/RPM/RPM_ResidentialServices1.htm . It says it "Delivers the most comprehensive risk scoring in the industry." Call them; they're making you look bad.
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 07:02 am Well, the page is obviously grossly inaccurate. They claim to provide UniQuote and they can't because it's been discontinued since 10/99. Secondly when they claim to be the "largest credit reporting company" they are taking a very selective view. Experian is the largest credit reporting company having not only millions of consumers, but millions of business credit profiles available. Trans Union conveniently "forgets" all the businesses out there. Thirdly it is commonly accepted that certain businesses have more accurate information in certain geographical locations. I have seen zipcode lists that supposedly can tell you the best credit reporting agency to use for each area. For my zipcode Experian is top rated. Fourth, since all credit scoring models are statistically validated what does it really matter which one they pull from?
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 07:10 am Sean: Who said it was discontinued? Who validated the scores?
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 08:07 am Credit Quote and UniQuote have both been discontinued according to Steve Gaman of Fair Isaac. Should you wish to discuss the matter further with him contact him at (415) 472-2211. Fair Isaac plans to replace them with their next generation of "FICO" scores, which will more accurately predict "prepayment risk" which is not something covered by the current generation of FICO scores. There are two types of scoring systems in the world. Judgemental systems and emperically derived systems. Emperically derived scoring models are, by very definition, statistically validated by virtue of having been emperically derived.
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 08:51 am Sean: Emperically derived scoring models are, by very definition, statistically validated by virtue of having been emperically derived. In other words, nobody but Fair, Isaac and the credit bureaus has checked them. I looked into it.
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 09:57 am People don't test every portion of the model, but tests have and are run by people based on the "black box" viewpoint. That is the end result of the model is checked. A company will take 1,000 customers that score 620 and 1,000 customers that score 650 and determine which of these two sets has more delinquencies. When the people who score 620 have more delinquencies then the scoring model is considered to be generally effective. "...the Fed did undertake an analysis of credit scoring systems in the sense of trying to determine whether or not there were solid correlations between low scores and poor performance. And generally they found that there were...This was not an exhaustive study of each factor in a given scoring system and a relationship." So, basically, the scoring system does work as advertised. Groups of people who score low have more people not paying than groups of people who score high. This is off your own website, Greg -- I'm surprised you were unaware of it. Credit Scoring -- Statistically Validated
|
| | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 11:15 am Sean: I am perfectly aware of it. In fact, I obtained a copy of the report to which you referred. Did you? The report does not use FICO (credit bureau scores) scores in its analysis. It uses something Equifax fed the Fed (I was fed up when I read where the Fed was to head) called The Mortgage Score. The report does not validate FICO scores. Try again.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |