hdporter

From what I've gleaned, there are a very small subset of issuers who use Vantage as their primary metric for app and/or CLI evaluations. Judge them by the company they keep. There's no question that the only attraction of VS to an issuer is a bargain basement cost vs FICO. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against someone who scores an occasional wardrobe "steal" at Walmart. But tell me that they exclusively outfits themselves for all purposes and occasion at "Wally World" and I'm going to question their general sensibilities.

I don't see a downside. The instruction to dispute a tradeline with a CRA is a lazy response by a creditor to a query about why a tradeline shows outdated balances. It means they don't have to initiate a report themselves; just wait for the CRA to push a form response to your dispute in their direction ... they fill in the form and hit "Send". Definitely means that you get your update with the least effort on their part, as long as you don't mind a 2-4 week time lag. That said, there is a very slight and remote "downside". Were the CU not to respond to the dispute, the CRA would have no choice but delete the disputed tradeline until such time as the CU did reply with an update. But let's assume that the CU wouldn't send you in this direction if there were the slightest chance that they would fail to reply to the dispute investigation from the CRA.

A couple of us have been "hit" with this recently. The truth is that anyone can invoice you through PayPal. It's only necessary that the scammer has an email and they can try it out with PayPal, hoping that you actually have a PayPal account and an invoice can be generated. However, PayPal doesn't "collect" on the invoice. It's actually safe to ignore. The problem crops up when someone calls the scammer to complain, and in the process, reveals sufficient info that enables the scammer access to your PayPal account.

What @TheVig said (to the max).

Very helpful to know. Given the added handling involved, I'm pleasantly surprised. The Citi card portfolio is much less stellar than at the time of the original post in this thread. But I continue to esteem their customer service.

Large deductible policy (and you submit receipts, as necessary), or are you truly "riding bareback"? Not my business, actually, but there's a fascinating narrative here.

Both the CRA/TU verification of the report tradeline and the CA/DAS validation of the collection account are sufficient response to your queries. All that a CRA is obligated to do in response to a verification request is contact the reporter and ask them to verify the details of what's currently being reported. Unless you submit evidence that the tradeline details are erroneous in some respect, they're permitted to assume that any data submitted to them is accurate -- in other words, ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with the reporter/debt holder. (If you submit proof of inaccuracy to a CRA, then they'll seek documentation from the reporter and assess the evidence.) Note: Resolution of errors/inaccuracies in a reported tradeline are almost always more directly resolved through the original creditor, rather than using a CRA as a bureaucratic middleman. CA debt validation entails reporting details of the debt that's been referred to them for collection (or purchased by the CA) that should be sufficient to establish that you're the party on the hook. With a validation response, you're empowered to identify any information that isn't tied to you and document, in reply. why the debt doesn't belong to you. To suggest "next steps", it would be helpful to know whether you consider the debt legitimate and accurate or not. It would also help to know what you desire to accomplish with respect to the debt.

The "elephant" in the room are reported GS losses on their card products, as @MP80 detailed. That said, regularly using 5% or 6% of your line each month and PIF is not a compelling justification for a CLI. The current line is not constraining you in the least from doubling your monthly purchase volume. Yes, there are some issuers who grant upper 5-digits CL's without blinking too hard. But there are a good number who scrutinize requests for $15k+. It shouldn't be a marvel if GS starts falling into the latter category. (FWIW, I have a couple of issuers, PNC and a CU, who don't pop above $25k, and, of course, Synchrony caps some card products at $10k.) It's obvious you're aware that there's nothing about your credit profile and usage that should hold you back from a CLI. Sometimes it's just a matter of creditor policy and there's no reason to beat your head against a wall. .

NFLX closed Friday at $342.50. Best gut purchase in some time. But my clunker DocuSign and Fiverr are still swirling the bowl. I have hope that Fiverr might see some recovery in the coming year, but I'm on the fence as to whether I should dump at least half the DOCU holding ... it doesn't seem like it has significant upside potential.

I wouldn't expect so; these can readily be liquidated on Amazon, etc.

As I recall (and it's been awhile since the topic has come up), FWIW, TU has implemented strategies to largely defeat b*. But, yeah, a measure of reality set in to the effect that the credit score impact of inquiries is relatively modest and that after 6 inquiries in the last 12 mo, additional ones don't impair your score. The practical bottom line is that if your FICO score is <680, you likely have bigger fish to fry. If your score is 680+, removing a few inquiries won't have much impact on your likelihood of credit apps being approved. The most practical advice is to be modestly selective in what you apply for. Apply for products which, if approved, will see active use because they mesh well with your credit needs. If you're applying for cards in the same spirit with which you might spin a "wheel of fortune", you're doing it wrong.

Just my opinion speaking here; nothing else: You might want to tackle the SoFi loan first ... a proposed 60% settlement leaves almost $30k unpaid ... that's considerable incentive for them to see if they might come out better through a judgement. SoFi is reportedly very quick to proceed to court after default. It seems to me that SoFi is the lynch pin on which your top-end target of 65% across the board hinges. I recommend the following article from Forbes as a bit of a tutorial and reality check: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/debt-relief/debt-settlement-negotiations-diy/ This article brings up a salient point that I overlooked: IRS guidance to debt issuers is that they report any settlement of debt for less than the face value, the amount of which is potentially taxable to you. Note, in most cases if you can show that your net solvency after discharge of the debt is less than "0" (total assets - total liabilities), the debt forgiveness isn't taxable.

I steered clear of commenting on the "fraud" angle previously because I have no authentic background from which to comment. However, shooting from my hip, an accusation of "fraud" must establish facts which support such an intention. I assume that you were truthful in all statements made, including those re income, in application of the cards and when requesting any balance transfer. If so, I don't see where an element of fraud comes into the picture. (It might be worth shelling out $200 for a brief lawyer consultation for an authoritative opinion.) Your creditors are going to be most concerned with recovery of the debt. I'm not sure of what amount we're actually talking here, but I would imagine if you explain the failure of your business proposition (a measure of self-deprecation here won't hurt) and explain that you can't service the revolving debt that's outstanding (citing your total debt, monthly minimum payments, the amount of your current income and net monthly cash available), they will leap at the prospect of recovering 75% of the outstanding balance on the spot. They know they are unlikely to recover 100% if they sue and will suffer collection expenses and loss of income if they rely on the courts for a judgement. I certainly might expect them to hold out for a short time to see if they can get you to agree to a higher settlement. But 75% is as close to "as good as it gets" on settlement (especially with the substantial debt involved as a whole). I would expect most to reply, "how fast can you get a check to us".

Definitely my knee-jerk (and most valid) response. But then my egoistical brain tells me that a well-reasoned reply will certainly bridge whatever gap exists ... 😆

"Universal default" clauses in credit card agreements pertain only to the terms of credit (i.e. rates). What was banned was hiking rates because of the adverse condition of another issuer's account. This doesn't pertain to closure, however. If @DynamiteMan is successful in negotiating settlement of the noted accounts at less than face value, each settlement will be noted on his credit reports. The creditors with whom he has open, current accounts will evaluate the risk that they might incur future losses vs. the past and projected profitability on the accounts, should they continue in good standing. While you may be correct that some may only CLD, I would anticipate given the large reported balances before settlement that a majority of current issuers will opt to close in what is a relatively risk-averse credit environment right now. Admittedly (hopefully), my call could be vastly in error here. At the same time, current issuers might be reassured via discussion that a large percentage of the outstanding balances were settled in cash and that "DM" possesses stable income and liquidity.