Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
bassmount

Is it possible to combine Dave Ramsey and Credit Repair?

Recommended Posts

 

So, here is what I was going to do. Follow both CB and Dave.

 

We will work to pay everything off... and yet keep the few tradelines we have healthy and active, to keep our FICO up.

 

Is this a crazy thought? Has anyone done this and had it work for them?

 

Not crazy at all. I think taking what works from a variety of sources is a good thing.

 

Get out of debt, stay out of debt as much as possible? Great.

 

But assuming that all use of credit must equal debt problems? An oversimplification that Ramsey (and others) make quite a lot.

 

What would be so bad, say, about saving up for major purchases, but then using a credit card to make the purchases (so that you get the better consumer protection and any rewards that may be offered) and then PIF? Seems to me that'd be doing things the smart way!

 

 

It makes perfect sense to me. That was why I said in another post that I want the "best of both worlds" with this. <LOL>

 

I am the type of person that really had no budget until I started listening to DR. I now have a budget. I agree with the lowest to highest because, I am also one that wants to see results quickly and I do need that sense of accomplishment. BUT I do not agree with EVERYTHING he says.

 

Now with all of that said, we have VERY low CC balances because after the Emerge fiasco, DH was/is very much ANTI credit. We paid off and closed everything except two cards that I begged him to keep, for age and an emergency. That was Sears and Household. We also have AMEX "open gold Business" cards from his Mom, but they don't report and he has an Amex "Business green" from his company, which also does not report.

 

I also help my parents pay an account they have, that when I was younger I borrowed money on. I see this as "paying it backward" in that they helped me when I needed it, now I am helping them when they need it. IBM really screwed them up when they "restructured" the retirement accounts and they never took their money out of IBM and put it somewhere else. Now at 67 and 72 they have a problem sometimes making ends meet.

 

I think from personal cars we have 600 on the AMEX in the EXPO account (extended pay account on the Business card that allows monthly payments), 800 or 900 on Sears and about 400 or 500 on the Household. All total less than $2,500.00 in CC debt. His utilization is like 9%. I plan to PIF all of these while he is in Mexico this summer. Actually the Household will be dealt with shortly and closed (or sock drawer) because the interest rate is UNGODLY.

 

Then we have the truck and the house. Truck is like 4000.00 owed and the house is around 149,000.00 owed. We are planning on another car purchase AFTER the truck is paid off because we don't want tow car payments at one time. DHs pay is a fluctuating one where we have to budget from his base pay to even know how much we can afford. His pay looks GREAT on paper, but when you have to deal with 4 or 6 months of base pay on a "travel" budget... IT SUX. <LOL>

 

DH sees it as if we had no credit cards; bad things would not happen to us, like the possible identity theft with the Emerge card. I however read CB faithfully and ask questions, and I know that you have to be up on what your reports say, check them and have some good TLs established to get a better interest rate, higher loan amounts, etc. if needed.

 

That was why I wanted the best of both worlds. To be as close to debt free as possible, but maintain our credit standing. I think this is a logical approach, maybe a little more logical than DR, but not as bad as the guy Daddy listens to and say to just keep rolling over the debt to 0% interest cards in hopes that you can eventually get them paid off. Eventually with that approach, you will run out of inquiries AND you will have "too much" credit.

 

There has to be a happy medium somewhere in all of this credit/money madness. <LOL>

Edited by bassmount

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone who takes the position that credit is bad under any circumstance is an salamander.

...OR A FOOL

 

Apparently "fools" do pretty well with money, have you checked out www.fool.com ?

 

Seriously though Dave has some great ideas but a "one size fits all" is a bit extreme. Then again I see some pretty extreme stuff on CB in the mortgage and automotive forums also.

Everybody has to examain thier own goals and risk tolerence to acheive financial peace :rofl:

 

As far as credit score goes paying off 1 CC in full every month and having a mortgage is enough to get you into the 750+ club which is good enough for me :) We haven't had car loans since 2003 and our credit is just fine :D

Edited by 54regcab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are planning on another car purchase AFTER the truck is paid off because we don't want tow car payments at one time.

 

bassmount-

 

This is the kind of responsible financial thinking that DR would crucify you for. But it's reponsible, and most likely makes sense for what your needs are. You sound like you have a pretty good grasp on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramesy is the moron with the idea of paying the lowest balance first?

 

I thought his idea was to pay the highest APR first because that would actually make some sense.

 

well.....that really depends on the balances and differences between the APR. If the balances are vastly different, (like say ya had 5k on the lower APR card and only like 2k on the higher card), you *could* conceivably end up paying more by taking care of the high APR card first.

 

Say at the simple interest:

5K @ 18% yearly interest=900

2k@ 20% yearly interest=400

 

So ya spend way more interest on the card with lower interest.

 

(I did assume that interest rates are generally not DRASTICALLY different) You'd have to have the 5k at 8% interest or less before it would cost equal to or less interest than the 2k.. :dntknw:

 

My challenge to this is for you to create an excel sheet which tracks the total $$ spent paying these two cards off in the two orders. You will find that you will spend less paying the higher interest rate first. While it is true that the 18% loan has a higher $$ interest payment, it's the percentage that's important.

 

Assuming you make the same payments in each case, paying the card with the higher interest rate will always be less expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramesy is the moron with the idea of paying the lowest balance first?

 

I thought his idea was to pay the highest APR first because that would actually make some sense.

 

well.....that really depends on the balances and differences between the APR. If the balances are vastly different, (like say ya had 5k on the lower APR card and only like 2k on the higher card), you *could* conceivably end up paying more by taking care of the high APR card first.

 

Say at the simple interest:

5K @ 18% yearly interest=900

2k@ 20% yearly interest=400

 

So ya spend way more interest on the card with lower interest.

 

(I did assume that interest rates are generally not DRASTICALLY different) You'd have to have the 5k at 8% interest or less before it would cost equal to or less interest than the 2k.. :dntknw:

 

My challenge to this is for you to create an excel sheet which tracks the total $$ spent paying these two cards off in the two orders. You will find that you will spend less paying the higher interest rate first. While it is true that the 18% loan has a higher $$ interest payment, it's the percentage that's important.

 

Assuming you make the same payments in each case, paying the card with the higher interest rate will always be less expensive.

 

 

How would it *always* be less expensive?

 

I'd really like to know because even if you pay the 2K first and only paying the minimum bal on the lower interest, then it would seem (at least to me) that you would be costing yourself money. I mean I've never had a balance that high though, so I don't know if the minimum payment would even COVER the interest. :dance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramesy is the moron with the idea of paying the lowest balance first?

 

I thought his idea was to pay the highest APR first because that would actually make some sense.

 

well.....that really depends on the balances and differences between the APR. If the balances are vastly different, (like say ya had 5k on the lower APR card and only like 2k on the higher card), you *could* conceivably end up paying more by taking care of the high APR card first.

 

Say at the simple interest:

5K @ 18% yearly interest=900

2k@ 20% yearly interest=400

 

So ya spend way more interest on the card with lower interest.

 

(I did assume that interest rates are generally not DRASTICALLY different) You'd have to have the 5k at 8% interest or less before it would cost equal to or less interest than the 2k.. :angel:

 

My challenge to this is for you to create an excel sheet which tracks the total $$ spent paying these two cards off in the two orders. You will find that you will spend less paying the higher interest rate first. While it is true that the 18% loan has a higher $$ interest payment, it's the percentage that's important.

 

Assuming you make the same payments in each case, paying the card with the higher interest rate will always be less expensive.

 

 

How would it *always* be less expensive?

 

I'd really like to know because even if you pay the 2K first and only paying the minimum bal on the lower interest, then it would seem (at least to me) that you would be costing yourself money. I mean I've never had a balance that high though, so I don't know if the minimum payment would even COVER the interest. :)

 

Let's look at it differently...

 

How would the problem change if you had:

5 identical loans of $1k each at 18%

3 identical loans of $1k each at 20%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramesy is the moron with the idea of paying the lowest balance first?

 

I thought his idea was to pay the highest APR first because that would actually make some sense.

 

well.....that really depends on the balances and differences between the APR. If the balances are vastly different, (like say ya had 5k on the lower APR card and only like 2k on the higher card), you *could* conceivably end up paying more by taking care of the high APR card first.

 

Say at the simple interest:

5K @ 18% yearly interest=900

2k@ 20% yearly interest=400

 

So ya spend way more interest on the card with lower interest.

 

(I did assume that interest rates are generally not DRASTICALLY different) You'd have to have the 5k at 8% interest or less before it would cost equal to or less interest than the 2k.. :angel:

 

My challenge to this is for you to create an excel sheet which tracks the total $$ spent paying these two cards off in the two orders. You will find that you will spend less paying the higher interest rate first. While it is true that the 18% loan has a higher $$ interest payment, it's the percentage that's important.

 

Assuming you make the same payments in each case, paying the card with the higher interest rate will always be less expensive.

 

 

How would it *always* be less expensive?

 

I'd really like to know because even if you pay the 2K first and only paying the minimum bal on the lower interest, then it would seem (at least to me) that you would be costing yourself money. I mean I've never had a balance that high though, so I don't know if the minimum payment would even COVER the interest. :)

 

Let's look at it differently...

 

How would the problem change if you had:

5 identical loans of $1k each at 18%

3 identical loans of $1k each at 20%

 

 

Well, first of all, that would presumably be different because I'm pretty sure the minimum payment would cover the interest each month.

 

 

Why can't ya just answer the question though? I'm not trying to be dense. I just don't understand how no matter the circumstances highest apr first will save money.

 

For instance, I have CL that are only $200 versus some that are 9100. If the 200 had a higher APR, it would be EASIER to take care of but I don't know for sure that it would really "save" me money as presumably, if the minimum payment on 9100 is less than the actual interest being charged on it.

 

All I'm saying is that each person would have to run the numbers in their circumstances. I would assume more often than not the higher APR would be best to be attacked first, but I'm sure there are cases where it wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Dave says that paying off the debts from higest rate to lowest is mathmatically correct.

However if we were doing math we wouldn't have CC debt to begin with right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Dave says that paying off the debts from higest rate to lowest is mathmatically correct.

However if we were doing math we wouldn't have CC debt to begin with right?

 

 

My personal opinion:

 

Do whatever works for you. If I ain't paying the bills I don't care how ya pay 'em off. :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramesy is the moron with the idea of paying the lowest balance first?

 

I thought his idea was to pay the highest APR first because that would actually make some sense.

 

well.....that really depends on the balances and differences between the APR. If the balances are vastly different, (like say ya had 5k on the lower APR card and only like 2k on the higher card), you *could* conceivably end up paying more by taking care of the high APR card first.

 

Say at the simple interest:

5K @ 18% yearly interest=900

2k@ 20% yearly interest=400

 

So ya spend way more interest on the card with lower interest.

 

(I did assume that interest rates are generally not DRASTICALLY different) You'd have to have the 5k at 8% interest or less before it would cost equal to or less interest than the 2k.. :dntknw:

 

My challenge to this is for you to create an excel sheet which tracks the total $$ spent paying these two cards off in the two orders. You will find that you will spend less paying the higher interest rate first. While it is true that the 18% loan has a higher $$ interest payment, it's the percentage that's important.

 

Assuming you make the same payments in each case, paying the card with the higher interest rate will always be less expensive.

 

 

How would it *always* be less expensive?

 

I'd really like to know because even if you pay the 2K first and only paying the minimum bal on the lower interest, then it would seem (at least to me) that you would be costing yourself money. I mean I've never had a balance that high though, so I don't know if the minimum payment would even COVER the interest. :dntknw:

 

Let's look at it differently...

 

How would the problem change if you had:

5 identical loans of $1k each at 18%

3 identical loans of $1k each at 20%

 

 

Well, first of all, that would presumably be different because I'm pretty sure the minimum payment would cover the interest each month.

 

 

Why can't ya just answer the question though? I'm not trying to be dense. I just don't understand how no matter the circumstances highest apr first will save money.

 

For instance, I have CL that are only $200 versus some that are 9100. If the 200 had a higher APR, it would be EASIER to take care of but I don't know for sure that it would really "save" me money as presumably, if the minimum payment on 9100 is less than the actual interest being charged on it.

 

All I'm saying is that each person would have to run the numbers in their circumstances. I would assume more often than not the higher APR would be best to be attacked first, but I'm sure there are cases where it wouldn't.

 

I apologize, I was not trying to avoid answering. The fact is that I've been away from math too long to be able to prove it, but it makes perfect sense to me. All I can say is that if anyone can give me an instance where paying a lower rate first proves to be less expensive I would be very surprised, but I'd be happy to listen to anyone who could show that I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say is that if anyone can give me an instance where paying a lower rate first proves to be less expensive I would be very surprised, but I'd be happy to listen to anyone who could show that I'm wrong.

 

 

I've tried running several different scenarios and the result is- there isn't a cut and dried answer I can find. A lot seems to depend on the exact rates and balances subject to them.

 

If the amount of money borrowed at a lower rate is several times larger than the amount at a higher rate, you will at some point be paying out more dollars in interest on the lower-rate loan.

Advantage then = paying the lower rate (but higher dollar cost) loan... Until you've paid it down to the point where the interest *costs* equal those of the higher-rate loan.

At that point the advantage switches, and it becomes more important to pay off the higher-rate loan.

 

At some future point, you'll then pay down enough of the higher-rate loan so that it's interest costs again fall below those of the lower-rate loan. The advantage then flips back, and you are again paying out more dollars on the lower rate loan.

 

As an example:

Let's assume 10K borrowed at 5% and 1K borrowed at 29%. Monthly compounding and equal terms. Also assuming minimum payments on the non-accelerated loan pay interest charges only and do not reduce principle.

 

10K/5% will cost $22.75 per month in interest

1K/29% will cost $13.65/month in interest

 

advantage is to paying the lower-rate (but higher cost) $10K loan, until you've reduced it to $6,000, at that point the monthly interest charges drop to $13.00 and the advantage switches to paying tht lower rate loan....for a while.

 

That's only one of several scenarios. It seems entirely possible to have the "advantage" alternate back and forth with every payment. It all depends on the exact details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've tried running several different scenarios and the result is- there isn't a cut and dried answer I can find. A lot seems to depend on the exact rates and balances subject to them.

 

If the amount of money borrowed at a lower rate is several times larger than the amount at a higher rate, you will at some point be paying out more dollars in interest on the lower-rate loan.

Advantage then = paying the lower rate (but higher dollar cost) loan... Until you've paid it down to the point where the interest *costs* equal those of the higher-rate loan.

At that point the advantage switches, and it becomes more important to pay off the higher-rate loan.

 

At some future point, you'll then pay down enough of the higher-rate loan so that it's interest costs again fall below those of the lower-rate loan. The advantage then flips back, and you are again paying out more dollars on the lower rate loan.

 

As an example:

Let's assume 10K borrowed at 5% and 1K borrowed at 29%. Monthly compounding and equal terms. Also assuming minimum payments on the non-accelerated loan pay interest charges only and do not reduce principle.

 

10K/5% will cost $22.75 per month in interest

1K/29% will cost $13.65/month in interest

 

advantage is to paying the lower-rate (but higher cost) $10K loan, until you've reduced it to $6,000, at that point the monthly interest charges drop to $13.00 and the advantage switches to paying tht lower rate loan....for a while.

 

That's only one of several scenarios. It seems entirely possible to have the "advantage" alternate back and forth with every payment. It all depends on the exact details.

If the assumption is that you have a set amount of money that you're going to use to pay down the two loans, then I think your analysis is flawed. The total amount that you will owe on the two loans next month will be:

 

The total amount you owe on the two loans this month,

MINUS the total amount you pay on the two loans this month,

PLUS the total amount of interest charged on the two loans after this month's payment.

 

The first two terms in that formula (the amount previously owed and total amount paid) are constants. The only variable is the total amount of interest charged, and applying the extra payment to the higher-interest loan will reduce that interest amount more than applying it to the lower-interest loan would.

 

Using your hypothetical loans as an example (10k/5%, 1k/29%, minumum payment equal to the amount of interest owed), the minimum for the 10k loan would be .0042 * $10000 = $42, and the minimum for the 1K loan would be .024 * $1000 = $24. Let's also assume that you have a grand total of $300 to pay towards these two loans, which means you can pay the minimum on both and then an additional $234 on one of them (because $42 + $24 + $234 = $300).

 

When you start, the total balance on the two loans is $11,000. No matter how you allocate the money, your balance immediately after paying the two loans will be $11,000 - $300 = $10,700:

 

If you accellerate the 10k loan:

 

Loan 1: $10,000 - $42 - $234 = $9724

Loan 2: $1,000 - $24 = $976

----------------

Total: $10,700

 

If you accellerate the 1k loan:

 

Loan 1: $10,000 - $42 - $234 = $9958

Loan 2: $1,000 - $24 - $234 = $742

----------------

Total: $10,700

 

However, the amount of interest applied will be different in the two scenarios:

 

Accellerating the 10k loan:

 

Interest on Loan 1: .0042 * $9724 = $40.84

Interest on Loan 2: .024 * $976 = $23.42

-------------

Total interest: $64.26

 

Accellerating the 1k loan:

 

Interest on Loan 1: .0042 * $9958 = $41.82

Interest on Loan 2: .024 * $742 = $17.81

-------------

Total interest: $59.63

 

So if you apply the extra payment to the high-interest/low-balance loan, your total monthly interest charges will be $59.63, which is less than the $64.26 interest that would accrue if you applied the extra payment to the low-interest/high-balance loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah is correct on the interest rate thing. If you allocate a fixed amount to "debt payoff" you will always come out ahead mathmatically by paying applying extra "debt payoff" funds to the loan with the highest interest rate first. You can never come out ahead mathmatically by paying down the lowest rate loan first (I've run the numbers).

Even Dave says this, of course he would suggest knocking out the $1K simply because it's the lowest balance. The $1K loan could be knocked out quickly and the old loan payment would go to the $10K loan. One less check to write gives the "feel good" effect and helps keep you on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blah is correct on the interest rate thing. If you allocate a fixed amount to "debt payoff" you will always come out ahead mathmatically by paying applying extra "debt payoff" funds to the loan with the highest interest rate first. You can never come out ahead mathmatically by paying down the lowest rate loan first (I've run the numbers).

Even Dave says this, of course he would suggest knocking out the $1K simply because it's the lowest balance. The $1K loan could be knocked out quickly and the old loan payment would go to the $10K loan. One less check to write gives the "feel good" effect and helps keep you on track.

THAT "feel good" THING HELPS YOUR BOTTOM LINE DOESN'T IT???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ramsey's advice is based on what he believes most people would do.

 

Given that, his argument to pay lower balances down first makes sense from the standpoint of keeping many people motivated to keep going. I'm not most people, though, so I like the idea of saving interest $ more, and would pay off the highest rate debt first in nearly any instance I can think of.

 

His advice regarding not using credit, I think, can be seen in the same light. He assumes that most people will not PIF and will just end up carrying debt. Of course, there are more than a few people out there who do PIF and never carry debts.

 

The bottom line, as always, is that "one size fits all" really doesn't.

Edited by sfbehr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Ramsey's advice is based on what he believes most people would do.

 

Given that, his argument to pay lower balances down first makes sense from the standpoint of keeping many people motivated to keep going. I'm not most people, though, so I like the idea of saving interest $ more, and would pay off the highest rate debt first in nearly any instance I can think of.

 

His advice regarding not using credit, I think, can be seen in the same light. He assumes that most people will not PIF and will just end up carrying debt. Of course, there are more than a few people out there who do PIF and never carry debts.

 

The bottom line, as always, is that "one size fits all" really doesn't.

HIGHEST APR FIRST SAVES THE MOST MONEY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with carying a balance or debt, though. That's what is good about credit cards. You can buy something now, have it immediately, and pay for it over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However if we were doing math we wouldn't have CC debt to begin with right?

I know more math than you ever will yet I got in so much trouble I BKed.

 

DR is a snake oil salesman with bad advice that will lead to his lemmings paying more for insurance, mortgages, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have listened to DR as well and in fact I read his first book Financial Peace. He is ADAMANT about not using credit cards. I have heard him interviewed and pitted against this lady financial person who totally disagreed with him about not using credit cards. She said she had one that she used for emergencies and it was one that offered rewards as well and I agree with her. We do have one for emergencies; I can imagine us being stranded in a strange town on vacation and our car breaks down and we have to pay for car repairs just to get home..not everyone has thousands of dollars in their checking accounts so a debit card wouldnt help us in that situation. For heaven's sake - things happen and you should be prepared for them but that isnt always possible. I think DR even refers to the "stinking credit card" at the onset of his radio program. He lost millions during the real estate boom and went BK. I dont know how he got where he is but he is a millionaire and benefitted greatly from his experience when he hit rock bottom financially and for that I applaud and admire him. He is good at what he does because he has a tremendous following. I have learned from him and I think the snowball and envelope ideas are good ones. I know several people who adopted the envelope method and they said it worked for them. Different strokes - different folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have listened to DR as well and in fact I read his first book Financial Peace. He is ADAMANT about not using credit cards. I have heard him interviewed and pitted against this lady financial person who totally disagreed with him about not using credit cards. She said she had one that she used for emergencies and it was one that offered rewards as well and I agree with her. We do have one for emergencies; I can imagine us being stranded in a strange town on vacation and our car breaks down and we have to pay for car repairs just to get home..not everyone has thousands of dollars in their checking accounts so a debit card wouldnt help us in that situation. For heaven's sake - things happen and you should be prepared for them but that isnt always possible. I think DR even refers to the "stinking credit card" at the onset of his radio program. He lost millions during the real estate boom and went BK. I dont know how he got where he is but he is a millionaire and benefitted greatly from his experience when he hit rock bottom financially and for that I applaud and admire him. He is good at what he does because he has a tremendous following. I have learned from him and I think the snowball and envelope ideas are good ones. I know several people who adopted the envelope method and they said it worked for them. Different strokes - different folks.

YOU CAN USE CREDIT CARD EVERY DAY AND PIF AND GET REWARDS!!!

 

BETTER THAN CASH or CHECKS

 

CHEAPER TOO!!!

 

...and MILLIONS of people with a CLUE made MANY MILLIONS $$$$$$ IN REAL ESTATE

Edited by GEORGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However if we were doing math we wouldn't have CC debt to begin with right?

I know more math than you ever will yet I got in so much trouble I BKed.

 

DR is a snake oil salesman with bad advice that will lead to his lemmings paying more for insurance, mortgages, etc.

 

Glad you have learned so much math since your BK, now if only more people would do so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However if we were doing math we wouldn't have CC debt to begin with right?

I know more math than you ever will yet I got in so much trouble I BKed.

 

DR is a snake oil salesman with bad advice that will lead to his lemmings paying more for insurance, mortgages, etc.

 

Glad you have learned so much math since your BK, now if only more people would do so...

my knowledge of math came before my BK. Any fun threads on the DR boards these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However if we were doing math we wouldn't have CC debt to begin with right?

I know more math than you ever will yet I got in so much trouble I BKed.

 

DR is a snake oil salesman with bad advice that will lead to his lemmings paying more for insurance, mortgages, etc.

 

Glad you have learned so much math since your BK, now if only more people would do so...

my knowledge of math came before my BK. Any fun threads on the DR boards these days?

 

So why the BK if you have all this superior math knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines