Jump to content

FICO Rebuild Assistance with calculation


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone.

 

I have been working on getting my credit back in order.  However, I need some help with a couple things.  A friend added me as an authorized user on 3 cards, so I have a perfect four year history on them.  However, there is only one negative on my report, but it seems to be crushing my score entirely, despite the perfect history on the 3 credit cards.  I will give a miniature breakdown here, so any help understanding this, or how to handle it would be appreciated.

 

My goal is to be able to get a loan for a vehicle (Getting a 2014 Nissan Versa for $3500, but minimum loan at the credit union is $6000, so I'll be able to pay it down faster using some of the loan funds)  However, the FICO 08 from Experian.com shows at 539 currently.  Which obviously would NOT get me a decent loan rate.

 

Positives:
Chase Freedom Flex:  $0/$15,000

Chase Freedom:  $0/$4,000

Capital One VentureOne:  $0/$15,000

 

Negative:  Bridgecrest:  This was a loan that my ex had and I co-signed on at the time.  Was a horrid loan, and lesson learned.  I've paid $16,000 in it, they said even if I paid it off, they wouldn't send the title to me, it would go to her since she was the first signer, and I stopped making payments, she never paid anything on it.  She's since disappeared.  So anyway, last payment I made was August of 2020 looking at the Experian credit report.(paper copy).  I voluntarily gave it to them as a repo in January 2021 after they refused to say I would have the title if it was paid off.  I don't know how to fix this, as the interest rates were absurd, and after they sold the car at repo, they list the balance as $7,970.  This only negative seems to be the thing crushing my score, with allegedly only '4' on time payments, '4' 30-day lates, '10' 60-day lates, and '6' 90-day lates, and '20' CO statuses before changing to 'R' since Jan 2021.  What would you recommend to help with this?  Thanks in advance for your help.

 

The side question: Experian's FICO 08 shows as 539, but their breakdown shows "0 accounts paid on time" though all the revolving cards are.  It shows "100% of accounts have late payments" but none of the cards have ever been late.  Is that causing a miscalculation in the FICO score?

 

Thanks,

 

SushiMan 

Edited by SushiMan
breakdown of lates listing
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2021 at 3:53 PM, SushiMan said:

I have been working on getting my credit back in order.  However, I need some help with a couple things.  A friend added me as an authorized user on 3 cards, so I have a perfect four year history on them.  However, there is only one negative on my report, but it seems to be crushing my score entirely, despite the perfect history on the 3 credit cards. 

 

On 7/14/2021 at 3:53 PM, SushiMan said:

The side question: Experian's FICO 08 shows as 539, but their breakdown shows "0 accounts paid on time" though all the revolving cards are.  It shows "100% of accounts have late payments" but none of the cards have ever been late.  Is that causing a miscalculation in the FICO score?

 

For now, I'm only going to focus on your question re your Experian FICO 08 score.  (I may circle back with comments on the balance of your post).

 

Several years ago there was a growing cottage industry in which internet-based firms started paying good credits to add authorized user accounts to their credit cards for complete strangers, who obtained an AU account with no physical access in exchange for paying a fee.  The firms pocketed the difference.

 

This introduced a signfiicant distortion to FICO scores.  The willingness of FICO to previously consider AU accounts in evaluating your credit risk hinged on the nature of the relationship between cardholder and AU.  I've inferred that It could be presumed that the cardholder placed sufficient trust in an AU such that it translated, by itself, into a certain sign of reliability.

 

That aspect of implicit trust is absent in "buy a tradeline" transactions.  For that reason, FICO announced that it would be implementing barriers into the FICO algorithm such that "buy a tradeline" AU's were ignored by FICO scoring.

 

Details on how that actually is implemented has been murky, but it's been reasonably inferred that FICO may look for an address link of some type between the primary cardholder and AU in order for the AU account to be factored.  To date, I haven't seen substantive evidence of this algorithm ... until your post.

 

It's very clear form the FICO scoring comments that your AU accounts are being entire disregarded in scoring your credit risk.  I've no doubt that's frustrating to hear.  I can't shed much light beyond that observation, but I'd be willing to bet that what I've speculated here is accurate.

 

That doesn't mean that the accounts are ignored under credit models earlier than FICO 08 (such as traditional FICO mortgage scores).  This is likely a change inherent to each specific credit scoring model, so that I'd expect earlier model scores would favorably score your AU accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with hdporter here...the reality is that the only true credit in OP's name is simply not good.  What can ALSO not be ruled out is that the three AU accounts don't have any manner of recent activity, which is significant given some reports of accounts with no recent activity being excluded from the scoring models.  The absence of a balance on any of the three accounts is not indicia by itself, but it would ALSO mean that the report is not properly employing an AZEO model. 

 

It would ALSO not surprise me if the address link theory holds water.  I have an individual who briefly lived with me while getting situated and who I added to a small handful of cards for precisely the reason OP cites- to get a jump start.  They HAD credit, but following some legal issues, what was good had largely gone bad when their SO failed to make timely payments.  All of a sudden, they had newly defaulted student loans and a repo.  And that was in addition to some medical billings from local providers.  The AU accounts reported on one or two bureaus but not all of them, even with an address that matched my report.  The simple reality is that AU accounts are no longer a sure-thing fix..which is something that sucks when the AU account is used as intended instead of being abused as we had seen in the past 15 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some harder background on the question of how AU accounts are treated under FICO 8, the following article (written shortly before the final implementation of FICO 8 was put in place) is a good read:

 

https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/piggybacking-fico-credit-score-authorized-user-1265/

 

Note that "piggybacking" is a term used to describe the assignment of an AU account to an unrelated person (as measured via blood or friendship) for the sole purpose of enhancing their FICO score, with that person having no access to the account itself.

 

In short, the article details that Fair, Isaac originally considered exclusion of all AU accounts from FICO score consideration, but reconsidered when numerous parties defended such accounts as a relevant positive score factor when the parties involved were known to each other.  The article then states that FICO restructured FICO 8 to "incorporate technology that makes it much harder to game the system" through piggybacking.

 

In reading the quoted text, one should be mindful that companies such as FICO would consider the means by which you tie your shoes to involve a "technology".  In other words, what's involved in that "technology" is likely merely a "sifting" of AU accounts through a filter that looks for attributes that are more likely to characterize piggybacking accounts while being less likely to characterize traditional AU accounts among parties known to each other.

 

FICO is mum about what constitutes this "technology".  But common sense suggests that of all the information that is reported for an account held by both an account owner and an authorized user, the only data field that provides some means to discriminate in the desired fashion is account holder's address.  The revised FICO algorithm may look for a common address between the two accounts, or perhaps that both addresses are within a given geographic region.  Without some hard data points, it's impossible to speculate with any accuracy.

 

What we do know is that there is some discrimination between AU accounts within the FICO algorithm, beginning with FICO 08, and under a given set of conditions the presence of an AU account may not impact the AU's credit score as a consequence.

 

That said, as @centexnotes, even if the AU accounts in this thread pass muster and eligible for consideration under FICO 08, if the accounts have been dormant for 6 months or longer ("dormancy" being determined by failure of a creditor to update the tradeline, not account activity itself, although the two are typically related) FICO also will ignore them in calculating a credit score.  So there is one alternative explanation for the report comments.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Set scoring aside for a moment; you're going to have an uphill battle getting an auto loan with a recent repo.  At least an auto loan with rates you'll be able to stomach.

 

Also, and forgive me if this is too elementary of a response, but others reading this may have similar questions. 

 

Having 3 positive accounts and 1 negative doesn't get earn you a 75% (which would a C in most of my classes in high school or college). 

 

Your credit profile with the recent repo is going to be seen as an F by new potential creditors.  Over time, that will become a D-, and then a bit better, but this TL is going to raise eyebrows and create obstacles for most or all of the 7 years it reports.

 

Right now you are looking for an auto lender who will give you the financial equivalent of a participation trophy, and as such it won't be appealing at all.

 

On 7/14/2021 at 3:53 PM, SushiMan said:

4' on time payments, '4' 30-day lates, '10' 60-day lates, and '6' 90-day lates, and '20' CO statuses

 

Are these all accurate and in proper sequence?  It will take some work to go back through all of your records, but your challenge is to find a way (if possible) to have this TL removed by finding and disputing errors that then aren't corrected in a timely manner. 

 

Even if you get lucky and have the TL removed from just one bureau, your next step would be to freeze the other two and find a lender that'll pull the clean one. 

 

This is going to take work, tenacity, time, and perhaps luck, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by cv91915
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe @Why Chat has a repo program that may yield some options as well.

 

Whatever you do, read,  study, plan and ask questions before you take action to try and resolve this.

 

 

Edited by cv91915
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Bridgecrest:  This was a loan that my ex had and I co-signed on at the time.  Was a horrid loan, and lesson learned.  I've paid $16,000 in it, they said even if I paid it off, they wouldn't send the title to me, it would go to her since she was the first signer, and I stopped making payments, she never paid anything on it.  She's since disappeared.  So anyway, last payment I made was August of 2020 looking at the Experian credit report.(paper copy).  I voluntarily gave it to them as a repo in January 2021 after they refused to say I would have the title if it was paid off.  I don't know how to fix this, as the interest rates were absurd, and after they sold the car at repo, they list the balance as $7,970.  This only negative seems to be the thing crushing my score, with allegedly only '4' on time payments, '4' 30-day lates, '10' 60-day lates, and '6' 90-day lates, and '20' CO statuses before changing to 'R' since Jan 2021.  What would you recommend to help with this?  Thanks in advance for your help

 

 

I don't know if this would help as your situation is rather complex, however it doesn't cost anything other than postage to try. Follow the guides;

https://whychat.me/GUIDEBOOK.html

https://whychat.me/repoltr.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add a data point here. When my youngest turned 18 i added her to two long lived accounts as an AU, my AMEX which is 35 years old and my Chase which is around 20 years old. With nothing else on her report these did significant;y impact her score placing her in the upper tier 600's.

 

The only thing that tied us together would have been last name as we did not share an address at the time and we lived in the same geo but not the same zip code. I don't know how you may wish to interpret this but i thought it was valuable info.

Edited by sooperkool
spellin'
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First off, thank you all for the various responses; they are all appreciated. 

 

@hdporter @centex I actually live with the person who added it, though since I maintain an address in GA, I do not change my license, as my son attends school there with his mother still, as well as my other home is there.  I'm not sure if the algorithm picks that up, but I do receive mail here, and have updated my address with my banks and credit cards.  The cards that are listed are all active, even within the last month, so the dormancy question can be knocked out the box.  I did just move here, and just get the cards added, so that's my likely assumption, and terrible result for my luck, but it is what it is.

 

@cv91915 They are not actually in sequence, I just totaled them up, but I do have the paper report to try to go over.  I had multiple complaints with Bridgecrest over the time of the car about them not applying payments properly, and I kept a pile of receipts as well.  From what I'm reading here, one thing is to go back and each incorrect application to dispute them all, but I want to make sure to do that properly.  It seems like they just might make minor corrections here or there rather than remove the whole tradeline, so I want to make sure I take the proper steps.  I'll take a look at Why Chat's guide first off.

@Why Chat Thank you, I will take a look at the guides tomorrow and see about starting the processes.  I appreciate the hard work you put into those!  I did find this on the guide, however 

"It may be used AFTER 2 years from the date of the repo sale, providing there has been no filed claim for a judgment.

It should not be used if you have been sued, or if the repossession is less than 2 years ago."

With the repo sale happening in February 2021, unfortunately it appears I shouldn't be using that guide, if I properly understand....but then I see this:  

"It can be used earlier than 2 years from the repo date if you are SURE you received no notices of the sale."

Since I was listed as a co-signer, I didn't get anything, nor do I have contact with the person who was the co-buyer, but no, I got nothing.  So does that mean I *should* try that route?  Sorry for the questions, I just want to make sure I don't take a mis-step here with the only negative.

 

Thank you all again,

 

SushiMan

 

Edited by SushiMan
Reading Why Chat's guide and editing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Chat, just as an FYI as I know you put a lot of work in your site, the links to repo laws are no longer active.  However, I did some googling, and found  what I think is a pretty good source for Maryland, where I am currently.  https://itstillruns.com/car-repossession-laws-maryland-7324094.html

 

Never got any of the forms mentioned here, and had to make multiple calls to find out anything at all over the years.  So with that said, that's required notice and all other parts that weren't received under Maryland law.  I've prepared the basic letter per guidebook, but per that site list of repo laws, seems there's a lot more ammunition that I thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GordonnotRamsay said:

I hope people will be okay with the way assets have gone recently because cryptocurrency has taken over the world with its solid immense growth.

🙄

 

Yeah, that drop from over $60K to less than $30K REALLY helped people. 

Edited by CTSoxFan
removed link
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2021 at 12:48 AM, cv91915 said:

Set scoring aside for a moment; you're going to have an uphill battle getting an auto loan with a recent repo.  At least an auto loan with rates you'll be able to stomach.

 

Also, and forgive me if this is too elementary of a response, but others reading this may have similar questions. 

 

Having 3 positive accounts and 1 negative doesn't get earn you a 75% (which would a C in most of my classes in high school or college). 

 

Your credit profile with the recent repo is going to be seen as an F by new potential creditors.  Over time, that will become a D-, and then a bit better, but this TL is going to raise eyebrows and create obstacles for most or all of the 7 years it reports.

 

Right now you are looking for an auto lender who will give you the financial equivalent of a participation trophy, and as such it won't be appealing at all.

 

 

Are these all accurate and in proper sequence?  It will take some work to go back through all of your records, but your challenge is to find a way (if possible) to have this TL removed by finding and disputing errors that then aren't corrected in a timely manner. 

 

Even if you get lucky and have the TL removed from just one bureau, your next step would be to freeze the other two and find a lender that'll pull the clean one. 

 

This is going to take work, tenacity, time, and perhaps luck, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH!! I am unsure why people believe the credit can be trashed over YEARS and they still figure it should be fixed in minutes.  The other thing is that those three tradelines may not have any activity.  $0 balances dont always look good  IF the account isnt used and closes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2021 at 10:44 AM, dredee0 said:

TRUTH!! I am unsure why people believe the credit can be trashed over YEARS and they still figure it should be fixed in minutes.  The other thing is that those three tradelines may not have any activity.  $0 balances dont always look good  IF the account isnt used and closes out.

And I'm unsure why an ongoing battle with a creditor (And only negatives) would be called 'trashed over YEARS' -- But no one's demanded in minutes at all here.  I've tried to fix such with them over time, and after now finding they violated several state laws, it's closer to time to play hardball of getting it finally fixed and removed.  Then it's nothing but positive and moving forward.  @dredee0 If you actually bothered to read the thread rather than come in on a high horse, you'd realized your comments would also have been answered above as far as the accounts are in repeat use; I just prefer not paying interest, and they're paid off on a date that fits my budget well.  They've reported various totals before.  Month before, one had $7, one $3, and the other $150.  So all 3 are in active status, not dormant.  If that was missed the first time, there it is again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SushiMan said:

And I'm unsure why an ongoing battle with a creditor (And only negatives) would be called 'trashed over YEARS' -- But no one's demanded in minutes at all here.  I've tried to fix such with them over time, and after now finding they violated several state laws, it's closer to time to play hardball of getting it finally fixed and removed.  Then it's nothing but positive and moving forward.  @dredee0 If you actually bothered to read the thread rather than come in on a high horse, you'd realized your comments would also have been answered above as far as the accounts are in repeat use; I just prefer not paying interest, and they're paid off on a date that fits my budget well.  They've reported various totals before.  Month before, one had $7, one $3, and the other $150.  So all 3 are in active status, not dormant.  If that was missed the first time, there it is again.

If all three were reporting those small balances, the ratio of cards to cards with a balance was killing you.  That element of the algorithm doesn't care how small the balance might be- it ONLY cares that a balance existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2021 at 8:42 AM, centex said:

If all three were reporting those small balances, the ratio of cards to cards with a balance was killing you.  That element of the algorithm doesn't care how small the balance might be- it ONLY cares that a balance existed.

Correct.  Such I paid them down.  This month, they'll report with $5, $0, $0.  But it's not recognizing them. I called in MyFico support since FICO didn't have a number for an algorithm issue, just to contact MyFICO support...they claim that the cards are being calculated in, which makes no sense numerically speaking.  Then I got the stupidest advice ever from the supervisor "Maybe you should try letting a balance report for a while and see if fit changes things.  Using your credit more can help build your credit scores."  Direct quote I kid you not.  But even if all 3 did have that balance, it shouldn't have pulled it down to the degree that it did.  So now I'm waiting on the letters results from sending out via Why Chat's method above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SushiMan said:

Correct.  Such I paid them down.  This month, they'll report with $5, $0, $0.  But it's not recognizing them. I called in MyFico support since FICO didn't have a number for an algorithm issue, just to contact MyFICO support...they claim that the cards are being calculated in, which makes no sense numerically speaking.  Then I got the stupidest advice ever from the supervisor

 

 

You know the expression, "You can't fight City Hall"? It might be best to think of the FICO algorithm that way ...

 

Unless I'm mistaken, my guess is that your call to myFICO support didn't prompt them to specifically look at your report content in any substantive way to evaluate how these tradelines are impacting your score.  At best, they gave you their best supposition, based upon what they generally hold to be true.

 

My point is, you could talk yourself blue in the face without the slightest possibility that your score would be impacted whatsoever.  Respectfully, it's not a constructive avenue for the score boost that you hope to achieve (although, to the extent that the conversation might potentially have yielded any added insight into the factors improving your score, it wasn't a wasted pursuit).

 

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

 

Re your efforts to remove the "Repo" notation from your credit report, via a position with the creditor as supported by reporting law:  Definitely a worthwhile endeavor.  I'd expect a minimum of 3+ mo for this to play out.  And when it has, in terms of reporting you may only achieve removal of the REPO notation, but no other negative info.  (On the other hand, if the creditor is subject to legal enforcement of one or more legal remedies as a consequence of violating the required steps necessary to proceed to Repo, then perhaps you have leverage from which to demand removal of the tradeline).

 

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

 

Given my discussion thus far, I speculate that it may be in your best interest to proceed to take the $6000 loan on the best terms you can negotiate.  As you point out, you need only $3500 of the funds, so you could likely turn around and pay the loan down to that amount in short order.

 

Even if you were assigned at rate of something like 16%, you're talking about an extra $25/mo loan payment vs something like 6%.  Why let that hold you back, when you still have the option to refinance once your credit scores improve down the road?

 

Getting such a loan in place on your credit report should give your credit score a good boost within 3 to 6 months.  That may get you into FICO turf where, even without improvement of the auto default tradeline, you may qualify for an unsecured card with another issuer.  If not, then a follow-up smart move would be obtaining a secured credit card with reasonably attractive terms through an issuer who has a strong track record for transition to an unsecured card in time

 

What I look to hold out hope here is that you can reasonably pursue credit recovery even if the issue  re the AU accounts and the Repo aren't improved on.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SushiMan said:

Correct.  Such I paid them down.  This month, they'll report with $5, $0, $0.  But it's not recognizing them. I called in MyFico support since FICO didn't have a number for an algorithm issue, just to contact MyFICO support...they claim that the cards are being calculated in, which makes no sense numerically speaking.  Then I got the stupidest advice ever from the supervisor "Maybe you should try letting a balance report for a while and see if fit changes things.  Using your credit more can help build your credit scores."  Direct quote I kid you not.  But even if all 3 did have that balance, it shouldn't have pulled it down to the degree that it did.  So now I'm waiting on the letters results from sending out via Why Chat's method above.

CSR's with myFICO are glorified sales people.  They don't design the models and I would all but bet the ranch they don't even know what really goes into them since most likely never read the white papers.  And, even if you DID find someone that could discuss it intelligently, you would be shut down quickly on a proprietary information basis.  Remember that Fair Issac is selling a risk-based product...if they openly discuss everything that goes into the sausage, then the risk analysis is capable of being circumvented even more than some people already try to do. 

 

You say that "they'll report with..." which suggests they have not yet updated.  You need to have patience, especially with a less-than-stellar report.  The negative information on your report is substantial and has you in a bucket that is different that the segment occupied by consumers with zero negative information on the reports. 

 

Lastly, before stressing over a three-digit number, I would suggest first confirming that it is even the same model your prospective lender would use.  For example, knowing a Bankcard8 score does you little good if your lender is using FICO9 or is using an auto-enhanced model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone,

 

Got a response back to Why Chat's letter today.  I did login to their website with my information, and found this:  Bridgecrest - I don't exist.

 

Also, there was this letter in response that they want me to basically fill in my information for them, despite the initial letter having the VIN and identifying information, and my SSN in their system from screenshot above indicates that I don't have any account with them to fill out.  I am severely DISinclined to give them anything else at this point.  

 

What should be my next steps from here:


The Bridgecrest response to this letter.

 

Thanks for all your help and insight -- The original letter did give them the VIN, my full name, and account number portion shown on the credit report.  

 

Thanks,

 

SushiMan

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2021 at 7:49 PM, SushiMan said:

Hi everyone,

 

Got a response back to Why Chat's letter today.  I did login to their website with my information, and found this:  Bridgecrest - I don't exist.

 

Also, there was this letter in response that they want me to basically fill in my information for them, despite the initial letter having the VIN and identifying information, and my SSN in their system from screenshot above indicates that I don't have any account with them to fill out.  I am severely DISinclined to give them anything else at this point.  

 

What should be my next steps from here:


The Bridgecrest response to this letter.

 

Thanks for all your help and insight -- The original letter did give them the VIN, my full name, and account number portion shown on the credit report.  

 

Thanks,

 

SushiMan

 

@Why Chat

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.




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      182,438
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    DLWrigh18
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines