Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
CreditGuy03

How does one get a large unsecured loan?

Recommended Posts

Shaking my head... but nothing is rattling... must be me, but I don't get the gist of the squeezing a lemon match... WTF? CV is absolutely right... those things do matter... the problem occurred with "entirely false" Why try and defend an indefensible position? But who am I to question an obvious genius who asks "are you high?"

 

CV... congrats on your restraint...

Look who wants to join the supposed squeezing a lemon match. Apparently you do not have the same restraint as you're now resorting to name calling. Did you come here to add anything useful to the topic, or just whine?

 

 

The only thing I'm defending here is the definition of the term "clean report", which is free of derogatories. UT (high or low), thin files, and history are NOT derogatories!

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shaking my head... but nothing is rattling... must be me, but I don't get the gist of the squeezing a lemon match... WTF? CV is absolutely right... those things do matter... the problem occurred with "entirely false" Why try and defend an indefensible position? But who am I to question an obvious genius who asks "are you high?"

 

CV... congrats on your restraint...

Look who wants to join the supposed squeezing a lemon match. Apparently you do not have the same restraint as you're now resorting to name calling. Did you come here to add anything useful to the topic, or just whine?

 

 

The only thing I'm defending here is the definition of the term "clean report", which is free of derogatories. UT (high or low), thin files, and history are NOT derogatories!

 

Yep you are right... you definitely got under my skin... and that takes a lot... Can you cite the credit dictionary you are using? I'm unaware of the published one you are referencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Dad...

 

Again with the name calling?

 

 

Seriously though. One of the definitions in there is derog, which is a "negative item on your report". UT and thin files aren't negative report items. They are calculated negative and very temporary situations by someone "viewing" your report.

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

 

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a written fact and will always exist on your reports until it falls off or you dispute it. UT in the negative form comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "Newbies come here first" section.

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

Edited by mendelssohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

 

That's awesome of you to notice what FICO represents, but ONCE AGAIN, that wasn't my point!!! Until FICO, FAKO, or whoevers opinionated scoring model gets ahold of your report, your report is "CLEAN". No baddies! No derogs. Squeeky clean reports!

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling someone (anyone) a troll just because. If the title fits wear it.

 

I can't believe how many so called vets get butt crunched when someone disagrees with their infinite wisdom on matters relating to credit.

Anyway I am enjoying the back and forth ladies keep it up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

That's awesome of you to notice what FICO represents, but ONCE AGAIN, that wasn't my point!!! Until FICO, FAKO, or whoevers opinionated scoring model gets ahold of your report, your report is "CLEAN". No baddies! No derogs. Squeeky clean reports!

As soon as you talk start talking about aquiring credit, FICO is relevant, and high utilization is negative to FICO.

 

You can argue semantics all you want. High utilization = bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

That's awesome of you to notice what FICO represents, but ONCE AGAIN, that wasn't my point!!! Until FICO, FAKO, or whoevers opinionated scoring model gets ahold of your report, your report is "CLEAN". No baddies! No derogs. Squeeky clean reports!

As soon as you talk start talking about aquiring credit, FICO is relevant, and high utilization is negative to FICO.

 

You can argue semantics all you want. High utilization = bad.

 

Well, since you refuse to read the original statement, I'll regurgitate it back to you: "Reports were clean, except for high UT".

 

I still stand by this statement. My reports were clean, free of derogs. The exception was high UT, which only the LENDER sees as bad. Maybe...

 

CV's position is that reports are always seen as bad with high UT. Sorry, but I proved that wrong by acquiring 2 $10k sig loans. The reason why that is, is because payment history with the lender and annual income can blow that UT aside easily.

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

That's awesome of you to notice what FICO represents, but ONCE AGAIN, that wasn't my point!!! Until FICO, FAKO, or whoevers opinionated scoring model gets ahold of your report, your report is "CLEAN". No baddies! No derogs. Squeeky clean reports!

As soon as you talk start talking about aquiring credit, FICO is relevant, and high utilization is negative to FICO.

 

You can argue semantics all you want. High utilization = bad.

 

Well, since you refuse to read the original statement, I'll regurgitate it back to you: "Reports were clean, except for high UT".

 

I still stand by this statement. My reports were clean, free of derogs. The exception was high UT, which only the LENDER sees as bad. Maybe...

 

CV's position is that reports are always seen as bad with high UT. Sorry, but I proved that wrong by acquiring 2 $10k sig loans. The reason why that is, is because payment history with the lender and annual income can blow that UT aside easily.

 

 

My position is that if you have high utilization reporting you don't have a clean report.

 

It's right here.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

That's awesome of you to notice what FICO represents, but ONCE AGAIN, that wasn't my point!!! Until FICO, FAKO, or whoevers opinionated scoring model gets ahold of your report, your report is "CLEAN". No baddies! No derogs. Squeeky clean reports!

As soon as you talk start talking about aquiring credit, FICO is relevant, and high utilization is negative to FICO.

 

You can argue semantics all you want. High utilization = bad.

 

Well, since you refuse to read the original statement, I'll regurgitate it back to you: "Reports were clean, except for high UT".

 

I still stand by this statement. My reports were clean, free of derogs. The exception was high UT, which only the LENDER sees as bad. Maybe...

 

CV's position is that reports are always seen as bad with high UT. Sorry, but I proved that wrong by acquiring 2 $10k sig loans. The reason why that is, is because payment history with the lender and annual income can blow that UT aside easily.

 

 

My position is that if you have high utilization reporting you don't have a clean report.

 

It's right here.

 

 

 

 

 

So answer this:

 

If I'm 18yo. Just got my first creditcard. And the tradeline is only showing 1 month of positive payment history with 0 balance. Is my report "dirty"?

Edited by Jon77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logic>You

 

Now search for "key derogatory" and see how Miriam describes it as it relates in the credit world.

 

You keep changing your terminology in an attempt to make yourself right...not the way it works

 

If high UT by your own words "are calculated negative" then they are in fact a negative item.

Yep. There's no way you can argue that high utilization is not negative.

That's because someone now needs to explain to you what a "calculated negative" is. Scoring methods vary by the lender. The 3 bureau reports do not say that high UT and thin files are negatives. Calculations by manufactured scoring methods do.

 

A derogatory on a report is a fact and will always exist until it falls off or you dispute it. UT comes from someone's interpretation of your report.

 

It's ok, you two wouldn't be the first to skip over the "read here first" forums.

Those manufactured scoring methods that you speak of are FICO scoring models. FICO doesn't care if the CRAs don't count high utilization as a negative on your reports, but it is most definitely counted as a negative in FICO scoring models.

 

Enough with the snide remarks.

That's awesome of you to notice what FICO represents, but ONCE AGAIN, that wasn't my point!!! Until FICO, FAKO, or whoevers opinionated scoring model gets ahold of your report, your report is "CLEAN". No baddies! No derogs. Squeeky clean reports!

As soon as you talk start talking about aquiring credit, FICO is relevant, and high utilization is negative to FICO.

 

You can argue semantics all you want. High utilization = bad.

 

Well, since you refuse to read the original statement, I'll regurgitate it back to you: "Reports were clean, except for high UT".

 

I still stand by this statement. My reports were clean, free of derogs. The exception was high UT, which only the LENDER sees as bad. Maybe...

 

CV's position is that reports are always seen as bad with high UT. Sorry, but I proved that wrong by acquiring 2 $10k sig loans. The reason why that is, is because payment history with the lender and annual income can blow that UT aside easily.

 

 

My position is that if you have high utilization reporting you don't have a clean report.

 

It's right here.

 

 

 

 

 

So answer this:

 

If I'm 18yo. Just got my first creditcard. And the tradeline is only showing 1 month of positive payment history. Is my report "dirty"?

 

 

My position is that if you have high utilization reporting you don't have a clean report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Besides derogs on the report, is UT the only factor that you consider to make an unclean report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Besides derogs on the report, is UT the only factor that you consider to make an unclean report?

 

 

My position is that if you have high utilization reporting you don't have a clean report. That's my position even when you try to change the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The exception was high UT, which only the LENDER sees as bad. Maybe...

 

 

Well when it boils down to it, isn't the only thing that matters is how a lender sees it?

 

I don't keep a high credit score for entertainment purposes or to impress people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Besides derogs on the report, is UT the only factor that you consider to make an unclean report?

 

 

My position is that if you have high utilization reporting you don't have a clean report. That's my position even when you try to change the subject.

 

 

If you wanna be so sensitive about it, then how about this ON-topic question:

 

At what point does one's UT% rise to where your report is NOT clean? In other words, let everyone here know the % at which YOU feel they must say "My reports are no longer clean because I have a __% UT showing today".

 

 

 

 

ib3%sweetspot

 

 

 

The exception was high UT, which only the LENDER sees as bad. Maybe...

 

 

Well when it boils down to it, isn't the only thing that matters is how a lender sees it?

 

I don't keep a high credit score for entertainment purposes or to impress people.

 

Yup. That's why I always say "know your lender". Some don't use FICO to make the final judgment. CU's, for instance, will look at that first, then weigh the additional circumstances, like income, ability to pay, DTI, payment history with THEM, etc.

I had a relatively high UT at the time, but made enough money for a low DTI, and banked with them for 20yrs. I was in and out with a $10k check in 20 minutes.

 

What if I'm a millionaire with a couple $1k limits and I let one or two of those cards report high UT this month because I was in Europe the last 3 weeks and didn't PIF before I left? Score takes a temporary dive, but no CU is going to deny me a loan over it.

Edited by Jon77

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