Bill Proposed Today: Fair Credit Reporting Improvement Act of 2014

[HoustonLynne]

I was sure someone must have posted this already, but I don't see anything in the credit forum -- so here ya go.

 

If hell freezes over and this makes it through the wringer,

 

as the line in the old Baptist Hymnal says,

 

"What a day of rejoicing that will beeeeee..."

 

 

I jacked this article from The ARMpit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6yZJOy4oCDROTF4WWYtRFZXM1E/edit?usp=sharing

 

And here's the Washington Post's coverage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/09/09/rep-maxine-waters-proposes-sweeping-changes-to-credit-reporting-law/

 

 

 

[Misty120]

Joy to the world indeed. Thanks for sharing!

[raduque]

The comments on that WashPost article.... WOW.

[cv91915]

The bill as described does nothing to improve the foundation of our credit system... which is critical to our economy.

 

The system has major flaws, but gutting an essential tool that helps keep the cost of credit down for the vast majority of us isn't the answer.

[tmkats]

The bill as described does nothing to improve the foundation of our credit system... which is critical to our economy.

 

The system has major flaws, but gutting an essential tool that helps keep the cost of credit down for the vast majority of us isn't the answer.

Agreed. I think the only good idea she had was to reduce the reporting time for baddies to four years. The rest does nothing to help anyone.

[raduque]

 

The bill as described does nothing to improve the foundation of our credit system... which is critical to our economy.

 

The system has major flaws, but gutting an essential tool that helps keep the cost of credit down for the vast majority of us isn't the answer.

Agreed. I think the only good idea she had was to reduce the reporting time for baddies to four years. The rest does nothing to help anyone.

 

I like weighing medical collections less. Even people with 20+ years of perfect credit history can get that destroyed by a single illness or required surgery.

[shifter]

removing PIF or settled debt is very risky. that undermines the entire reason for payment history.

 

the 4 years vs 7, I would have to see some risk modeling with those 2 numbers to see how that would change the risk models.

 

however, 4 years is a pretty long time as is, so maybe that would be a positive.

[HoustonLynne]

Dangit. Forgot to include this at the end of OP.

 

[mendelssohn]

removing PIF or settled debt is very risky. that undermines the entire reason for payment history.

 

the 4 years vs 7, I would have to see some risk modeling with those 2 numbers to see how that would change the risk models.

 

however, 4 years is a pretty long time as is, so maybe that would be a positive.

I imagine it would hurt people with dinged credit much more over the 4 year period because the predictive models would probably weigh what negative information IS reporting much more heavily. It would make rebuilding easier, but you might suffer more during the process to clean reports.

[ubercat]

Washington always seems want sweeping reforms.

[BRBiz]

I don't see that billing going any place. I'm not sure changing from 7 years to 4 years is a great idea as much as some of you may disagree. As shifter said I would like to see a risk model on those numbers as well. Maybe 6 years would be good or possibly 5. No doubt would it increase default rates on loans if it was off your reports in only 4 years.

[ManofB]

I think 4 years is a good time frame. There will always be the type that get into repetitive credit trouble and there are those like on this board who get clean and stay clean. I think if you are going to stay clean, you'll learn all you need to know within that 4 year time frame.

[mendelssohn]

I think 4 years is a good time frame. There will always be the type that get into repetitive credit trouble and there are those like on this board who get clean and stay clean. I think if you are going to stay clean, you'll learn all you need to know within that 4 year time frame.

My point though was that the scoring models would probably have to weigh ANY negative mark more heavily, and during that 4 year time frame, it might be more difficult to get back into prime territory with what are now considered minor dings.

[cv91915]

I think 4 years is a good time frame. There will always be the type that get into repetitive credit trouble and there are those like on this board who get clean and stay clean. I think if you are going to stay clean, you'll learn all you need to know within that 4 year time frame.

Please post the risk studies you've read or performed to lead you to that conclusion.

[nysbadmk8]

Lots of dreams.. but this sort of makes some sense- "erase private student loan defaults for borrowers once they make nine consecutive, on-time payments."

[mendelssohn]

Lots of dreams.. but this sort of makes some sense- "erase private student loan defaults for borrowers once they make nine consecutive, on-time payments."

It would be nice if they also did it after consolidation. The reason I've been screwed is because I did consolidation instead of rehab.

[nysbadmk8]

 

Lots of dreams.. but this sort of makes some sense- "erase private student loan defaults for borrowers once they make nine consecutive, on-time payments."

It would be nice if they also did it after consolidation. The reason I've been screwed is because I did consolidation instead of rehab.

 

 

I know the feeling. DW rehabbed.. and now we are consolidating

[Losluv]

I doubt this bill will ever pass in our current political climate.

[ManofB]

 

I think 4 years is a good time frame. There will always be the type that get into repetitive credit trouble and there are those like on this board who get clean and stay clean. I think if you are going to stay clean, you'll learn all you need to know within that 4 year time frame.

Please post the risk studies you've read or performed to lead you to that conclusion.

 

 

Do you understand what "I think" means? Its often used at the start of a sentence that is about to express one's personal feelings. So you can tone down the flame throwing there tiger.

 

What exactly do you take issue with? Do you disagree that there will always be individuals who get themselves out of credit trouble, only to get themselves back in? Do you disagree that there are people who go through credit clean up, learn their lesson, and never fall into those same mistakes again? Do you disagree that if you commit yourself to learning about credit repair, and how to appropriately use credit, that four years is not enough time to do so?

 

I know the air must be mighty thin up on that high horse of yours. I am also aware that you definitely know your stuff about credit, but honestly, a lot of times, your responses come off as that of a flaming douche.

[FromGoodtoGreat]

Lots of dreams.. but this sort of makes some sense- "erase private student loan defaults for borrowers once they make nine consecutive, on-time payments."

 

I'm not well versed on the Student Loans rehabbing. Can you explain this in short? Are you saying once you have made nine consecutive payments to the Collection Agency the CA for the student loans will be removed from your credit reports? Also does the original student loan tradeline have the late payments removed? Thanks in advance for your answer.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mizliz1011]

whoa, Nellie, CV is on a high horse given his experience. Everyone has opinions given their personal experience. I personally think that the 2008 debacle has landed a lot of people into deep shitola that is lasting long past what it should. I agree that 5 years should be sufficient as a maximum and I think that most people are better informed re credit now. I agree about medical and Student Loans, but I don't have any issues with those, thank God.

 

Thanks HL for posting this. Right now I can't get an apartment because I have three Jan 2009 chargeoffs, which were paid or settled, on my EX. I have much dinero given a court settlement I got last year. My insurance rates are also high due to this. It is a long lasting ding that affects most aspects of your life. You will either crawl out of it or not but day one is ordering the reports and you either take it from there and act responsibly or not. When people have major life events, like an illness, it is a crime that it can alter their life for 7+ years. But, no studies, just my opinion.

[cv91915]

 

 

I think 4 years is a good time frame. There will always be the type that get into repetitive credit trouble and there are those like on this board who get clean and stay clean. I think if you are going to stay clean, you'll learn all you need to know within that 4 year time frame.

Please post the risk studies you've read or performed to lead you to that conclusion.

 

 

Do you understand what "I think" means? Its often used at the start of a sentence that is about to express one's personal feelings. So you can tone down the flame throwing there tiger.

 

What exactly do you take issue with? Do you disagree that there will always be individuals who get themselves out of credit trouble, only to get themselves back in? Do you disagree that there are people who go through credit clean up, learn their lesson, and never fall into those same mistakes again? Do you disagree that if you commit yourself to learning about credit repair, and how to appropriately use credit, that four years is not enough time to do so?

 

I know the air must be mighty thin up on that high horse of yours. I am also aware that you definitely know your stuff about credit, but honestly, a lot of times, your responses come off as that of a flaming douche.

 

 

A healthy credit system is vital to the livelihood of our economy, and if you take away factual measures that reliably predict the risk of credit default that will drive up the delinquency rate. Along with that will go the cost of credit for everyone, and that will be a drag on the economy.

 

Whether past credit issues make people feel bad about themselves or cause them future hardships isn't the question. The question is whether the proposed changes will have a positive or negative impact on a macro level.

 

I'm completely open to considering data which shows that the behaviors that are measured by the current system do not reliably predict risk, but that's not what you offered. I was inviting you to present facts to support your position.

It appears that the summary of your factual and economic analysis reveals that I'm a flaming douche. You may very well be right, but that doesn't make me wrong on this.

[mizliz1011]

removing PIF or settled debt is very risky. that undermines the entire reason for payment history.

 

the 4 years vs 7, I would have to see some risk modeling with those 2 numbers to see how that would change the risk models.

 

however, 4 years is a pretty long time as is, so maybe that would be a positive.

Having now read both articles offered by HL, the issue of settled debt is one that I can speak to. I had two three debts "settled" that were charge offs.

 

In one of them there were charges (reviewed by a judge) that were deemed incorrect or predatory and contrary to the CARD act. They were 75% of the charges resulting in dubious "credited after 3.00 in the afternoon", phone payment charges, late payment and over limit charges- all resulting from the 3.00pm charges after the act went through. and I had my phone records. So I paid 100% of what the judge deemed fair, including all charges and interest. that was C1

 

In another one, resolved by a lawyer with C-BK, there were letters from C-Bk that were contrary to their charges and handling of the account (which was a 30 year account with a perfect payment record until one month of a payment that was late). the jacking of interest, and various other charges, were ADMITTED by C-Bk to be illegal. So the chargeoff was "settled" for the correct amount.

 

In the last chargeoff, I was able to locate (at some expense) checks deposited into the creditor's bank account that were misapplied to some one else's account that had a similar name. so we "settled" at a different figure which represented precisely that difference.

 

These were not just cutting a deal. The settlement amounts represented Paid as Agreed after admission of guilt by the OC's. They also ended up deleting the accounts. Settlement is not always getting a discount, merely justice. For example, the interest charges at C-Bk represented $14K of fraudulant interest. They did not pay my attorney's fees so I hardly feel as though I got over on them.

 

[cashnocredit]

 

removing PIF or settled debt is very risky. that undermines the entire reason for payment history.

 

the 4 years vs 7, I would have to see some risk modeling with those 2 numbers to see how that would change the risk models.

 

however, 4 years is a pretty long time as is, so maybe that would be a positive.

Having now read both articles offered by HL, the issue of settled debt is one that I can speak to. I had two three debts "settled" that were charge offs.

 

In one of them there were charges (reviewed by a judge) that were deemed incorrect or predatory and contrary to the CARD act. They were 75% of the charges resulting in dubious "credited after 3.00 in the afternoon", phone payment charges, late payment and over limit charges- all resulting from the 3.00pm charges after the act went through. and I had my phone records. So I paid 100% of what the judge deemed fair, including all charges and interest. that was C1

 

In another one, resolved by a lawyer with C-BK, there were letters from C-Bk that were contrary to their charges and handling of the account (which was a 30 year account with a perfect payment record until one month of a payment that was late). the jacking of interest, and various other charges, were ADMITTED by C-Bk to be illegal. So the chargeoff was "settled" for the correct amount.

 

In the last chargeoff, I was able to locate (at some expense) checks deposited into the creditor's bank account that were misapplied to some one else's account that had a similar name. so we "settled" at a different figure which represented precisely that difference.

 

These were not just cutting a deal. The settlement amounts represented Paid as Agreed after admission of guilt by the OC's. They also ended up deleting the accounts. Settlement is not always getting a discount, merely justice. For example, the interest charges at C-Bk represented $14K of fraudulant interest. They did not pay my attorney's fees so I hardly feel as though I got over on them.

 

 

 

Good for you! The only thing better is they should have paid your atty. fees but you still accomplished a great deal and I bet their atty. cost them more than yours.

[ManofB]

 

 

 

I think 4 years is a good time frame. There will always be the type that get into repetitive credit trouble and there are those like on this board who get clean and stay clean. I think if you are going to stay clean, you'll learn all you need to know within that 4 year time frame.

 

Please post the risk studies you've read or performed to lead you to that conclusion.

Do you understand what "I think" means? Its often used at the start of a sentence that is about to express one's personal feelings. So you can tone down the flame throwing there tiger.

 

What exactly do you take issue with? Do you disagree that there will always be individuals who get themselves out of credit trouble, only to get themselves back in? Do you disagree that there are people who go through credit clean up, learn their lesson, and never fall into those same mistakes again? Do you disagree that if you commit yourself to learning about credit repair, and how to appropriately use credit, that four years is not enough time to do so?

 

I know the air must be mighty thin up on that high horse of yours. I am also aware that you definitely know your stuff about credit, but honestly, a lot of times, your responses come off as that of a flaming douche.

A healthy credit system is vital to the livelihood of our economy, and if you take away factual measures that reliably predict the risk of credit default that will drive up the delinquency rate. Along with that will go the cost of credit for everyone, and that will be a drag on the economy.

 

Whether past credit issues make people feel bad about themselves or cause them future hardships isn't the question. The question is whether the proposed changes will have a positive or negative impact on a macro level.

 

I'm completely open to considering data which shows that the behaviors that are measured by the current system do not reliably predict risk, but that's not what you offered. I was inviting you to present facts to support your position.

 

It appears that the summary of your factual and economic analysis reveals that I'm a flaming douche. You may very well be right, but that doesn't make me wrong on this.

I didn't offer factual evidence because I don't believe there have been any studies examining a 4 year reporting on a macro level, or any level for that matter. The economy is critically important to me as well. My livelihood crests and falls with the economy. And while I should of left out the flaming douche comment, I was simply stating that you come off that way sometimes, not that you are that as your whole being. Your antagonistic approach, especially to a topic that is entirely OPINION based at this point, gets us nowhere.