hdporter

Discussed in greater depth: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/02/11/is-this-way-curb-student-loan-defaults/?utm_term=.700f6ddd8e8a While there may be a kink or two to work out, this is a reasonable approach to a problematic situation. The "discretionary income" basis for repayment should result in an manageable payment for more modest income graduates; the option to repay in 10 years sets a reasonable repayment term for those who achieve more desirable incomes. Reliance upon debt collectors to settle defaulted debt has yielded unsavory and unsatisfactory outcomes. This is a cleaner and more palatable option by which to ensure timely repayment of all loans.

I don't lose sleep over calls from people who don't want to clearly state the purpose of their call ... especially when they leave obscure voicemail. I suggest ignoring this and moving on.

Uh, how about when a gathering calls for something a little more upscale than your typical street clothes, but you still want the comfort and durability of denim. But, I get that if your idea of a fun evening is staying home and reading the Farmer's Almanac, standard denim just does fine ...

I've had this card on the back burner. I imagined I would divert some IRA funds to qualify for the max card reward rate. Still, I have a distaste for "travel reward" cards that define themselves by application of rewards on general purchases to offset travel charges on the card. Thats's simply arbitrary; not an enhanced feature.

I won't question that it may have been a profitable transaction, but it wasn't on the strength of related tax deductions alone ... I have a solid accounting/finance background. The tax basis in any asset purchase is based upon the consideration involved (i.e. the cash paid, for a straight-up cash purchase). "Face Value" has no bearing. The only value-related tax deduction from the investment would be if they received less in repayment than what the portfolio was purchased at. Of course, for what it's worth, the original lender would take a loss deduction for the difference between the final outstanding loan amounts and the discounted sale proceeds.

While there's a good chance that bad debt is a factor in the Blispay loan suspension, it needn't necessarily be the case. As a lender, they're required to keep reserves against possible loan losses. If lending grew more quickly than anticipated, or borrowers were slower to repay than anticipated, it would be necessary to bring in more investor money to continue lending. That said, the fact that they haven't sought additional investor money (or at least been successful in raising more money from investors), suggests that all isn't well -- and, indeed, loan write-offs may be excessive. No news is likely "bad news". I've assumed my account is defunct (once the outstanding balance is repaid in May).

My personal recommendation is to not focus on the somewhat unusual aspects of this situation (loan conversion, credit reporting, etc). Since, bottom line, you don't have qualms with the loan liability, strive to get someone at the CU to agree to change the adverse reporting month entries to a "not reported" status. I recommend calling the CU and asking to speak to the lead loan officer. Explain that you very much regret the delinquencies. Note that there were extenuating circumstances involved that you'd like them to consider and review whether the delinquent reporting can be cleared. Be succinct in your explanation and offer to follow with appropriate documentation, if it would be helpful in their consideration. If the loan officer explains that they're required by contract to report accurately, say that you grasp this and aren't requesting they they reflect a "current" status for the months of question. Explain that your understanding is that while anything reported must be an accurate reflection of payment performance on the account, there isn't a requirement to report. A status of "not reported" is consistent with the requirement to report accurately. If they argue the above reasoning, I wouldn't argue back. Simply acknowledge what he's said and enlist his assistance in effecting any change to the reporting that would lessen the impact of the negative entries. Oh ... obviously you want to clarify that you're hoping for changes to the delinquencies reflected on both the revolving and installment tradelines. I wish you the very best luck with this. Creditors are notoriously resistant to removal of adverse information these days. However, if you're reach out sincerely and honestly, hopefully you'll receive a bit of empathy in return and an earnest desire to do what they can.

Don't sweat a "closed by creditor" notation ... it has no bearing on your credit score and creditors don't read anything negative into it.

If you go to the online account management website for this card, you should see the following message:

+1 to all of the above. Repayment of the card, alone, will get you the max score boost. The high balance history will not depress your score.

Keep in mind that the stated requirement isn't to confirm (or estimate) income ... it's to confirm "ability to pay". I can see the feasibility of statistical modelling establishing a strong likelihood of a cardholder making minimum payments on a credit card, if maxed out, based upon past charging and repayment patterns with a decently reliable correlation. Anecdotal evidence suggests this means, along with self-reported income, may be exactly what most creditors use to CYA with the regs when it comes to credit approvals under the CARD Act.

Background on the "Ability to Pay" provision of the CARD Act: From: https://consumercomplianceoutlook.org/2010/first-quarter/regulation-z-rules/ Many creditors permit you to update your stated income on their website. In the interest of possibly prompting future CLI's, it's worth doing the update periodically.

Living in the Atlanta 'burbs, I'm intrigued. Frankly, the best promotional credit card opportunities seem to arise from the banking powerhouses, for better or worse. If out of this merger there arises an increased appetite to grow their card business, there's a prospect for another player on the field who may elect to come out with some strongly competitive options. On the other hand, the combined entity may elect to continue to concentrate on mildly competitive offerings restricted to their own geography. I won't be poorer for it.

I have the sense that, by far, the majority of employers do not participate with such services. As far as phone verification, it's my experience that most will confirm employment, including start date, but will not release any information related to compensation.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-metro-oliver-ripley-busted-grand-larceny-20190205-story.html