hdporter

I'll suggest, based upon past observation, that additional improvement is achieved by reducing all account balances to under 30% of their respective CL's. (While it's a more modest score boost than achieved in bringing balances to under 50% of CL's, it's significant, nonetheless.) In the past, I've suggested that (where feasible) targeting <30% utilization on each revolver, and <20% overall utilization will achieve most of the FICO score potential related to credit utilization. This advice was based upon observed score effects for FICO 4 (the model still used for mortgage lending). I believe FICO 8 loosely adheres to this as well but, generally speaking, I get the feel that FICO 8 cuts a considerable break for well aged, unblemished profiles.

Has anyone considered a dedicated forum for gems like this post?

Thanks for the heads up re online access for the C1 Walmart card. I had no difficulty using Firefox. Having logged into my existing Cap One MC account during the set up, the Walmart card was added to that existing account management login.

It would be helpful to have some detail: What amount do they claim is owed now? $0.14/day comes to about $51 annually. Say we're talking a statutory rate of 7% ... that translates to an outstanding balance of $700. Is it possible that they recovered the original judgment amount from your garnishment, but not the statutory interest (and that it's the interest for which they now seek recovery)?

Capital One Deserves More Respect

er ... wtf are "broader interest rates"? (Don't recall seeing the expression in any of my card T&C's) Or is the author using the word "broader" in the sense of "among a broader range of subjects, I don't know shit about interest rates"? ...

One and only one way to interpret the letter: bone headed adverse action notice that's required anytime you're extended less than the best available terms initially cited. Period. Ask the dealership about it, if you must. (I'd toss and forget it.)

Hey, I perfectly get where you're coming from (and, by extension, "Allkindabroke"). So, yeah, it's ultimately a personal judgment call. That said, here's where I personally come down on this: So long as the requested information doesn't compromise me in some fashion, I won't question why they need it and instead will just offer it up. In my personal situation, asked to offer up a statement I'd provide one for my primary checking account, which clearly documents the principal income reported on the app. Yep, they'll see detail of where the cash goes. This account runs an average balance of about $1k (cash is largely disbursed on receipt), so if they're looking for greater insight into my wealth, it's not going to give it to them. If they turned around and tried to daisy chain another account statement onto their request, I'd tell them to pound sand. That's me, but from a practical standpoint, they're likely to be satisfied with the first statement and, if so, I'll get what I want. But, yeah, if it's necessary for you to surface up anything that you're not comfortable with in order to meet their request, I get why you wouldn't. (For your own sake, however, just make sure that "exposure" is the issue and not simply "wtf do they need that for" at play.)

Don't take offense, but I don't grasp why you wouldn't provide the requested statement. (Of course, if there's a direct debit from "hookers and blow, inc" or "bigbutthos.com", I guess I might see where you're coming from.) I can't say if they simply want to better establish an account already in place, or if they simply are nosy. Whatever the case, you applied because you saw value in the product. I'm not sure why the statement request would diminish that value.

Consider the following: -- Any "assumptions" centex (or others) presented are extended merely in an effort to try and make sense of what you've observed. Like any assumption, if it turns out that they're not applicable to your situation, you simply reject any conclusions based on the assumption. No need to take offense at someone suggesting a reason for an outcome, based upon another anecdote with similar outcome. "Unwarranted" isn't the right call here. -- re PotO and the perceived attack: A post by someone whose epithet is "Mr. Mean" is unlikely to deliver up a bouquet with their input. For lack of a better term, it's his "shtick". Yeah, I drew offense at his first couple of replies to my posts. But it didn't take too long before I found that in reading his replies to me and others that if I extract the "attitude" from the reply, what remains tends to be some of the most spot on observations by anyone on this board. If you've been blindsided as I was at first, I get it. All I can advise is to "put your ego in check" and grasp the kernel of his posts. You'll be wiser for it (and, like any observation or advice, if it doesn't fit your situation, disregard it and move on). -- re #1: Yes, a "denial letter" is a denial letter. But any denial letter can be based on reasoning that leaves room for reconsideration. "Cannot verify identity" is perhaps the most bold-faced example. It begs a phone call to see what you can do to resolve the concern. (Which, of course you did -- that action is a matter of common sense, if you want the card; it doesn't need an "invitation".) -- re #3: Does it matter what the requested information/documentation has to do with, as long as it's not unreasonable to provide (as in, it jeopardizes your security, or some other concern -- not simply that you don't understand why they want it). And, if for some reason you feel providing the information puts you at risk in some fashion, tell them this and ask if there an alternative. Bottom line, you're the one that wants the account. Walking away isn't likely going to benefit you; of course, you're within your right to do so (just understand that you're the one making that call, not the lender).

Guess I'm a little slow on the uptake this am My first take was, "Why not just stop using the card". With greater consideration, it's clear you made the smart move. Based on your history with them, it was only a matter of time before they mailed you/mother a small box with a dead rat inside. (I suggest staying on your guard for 2 or 3 mo.)

Gee, guy ... the "security validation" thing is just showing you they care. It's kinda like having a spouse nudge you awake because he/she feared that you had stopped breathing. Between my Disco and Bev's, I average about 16 such nudges annually. It's actually sort of heart warming ...

So, was I the only one tickled by this?:

I posture the situation as akin to judging at a gymnastics meet: The judges rate under the same basic score guidelines, but ultimately each judge subjectively weights those factors differently.

PCL's don't report as installment loans. Discussion of the card structure is that the credit line is managed by a separate entity from the credit card. I expect two revolving tradelines, each reporting its own credit limit. I have a home equity line of credit for home improvement disbursements that I wish to pay off over a longer term. Yeah, I could move the balance around with various bt's (with an effective rate of something like 2%, after fee consideration). I prefer to pay up a bit and keep things simple by tapping my HELOC instead. So, in reference to your comment, sometime there can be a "point".