Have a question, and I am sure someone knows the answer. Received my credit report last month, and it was from CSC Credit Services. The first section lists collection agency accounts and the second lists credit account information. There are a couple of accounts that ARE collection agency accounts but they are listed under the second section, and not in the collection agency area. Should they be listed under collection agency area instead, and if so does this have an adverse effect on my already low score. Also when I pulled my FICO I noticed a couple were the same, and they didn't say collection, but they were over two years old. Shouldn't they say collection, instead of 180 days late??
I know that all collections are bad, but I have read that the last two years of your credit history carries more of a weighted average than older accounts, and if the account says 180 days+ to me, instead of collection account, it seems as if this is a newer account that was active recently,and it was not. I was just wandering if I understood this information correctly. Thanks!
FICO would not really be able to figure any dates out by just using the status field. I think it's safe to assume it looks at the DOLA or similar. The last thing I'd want to do is have a TL purposely marked as a collection.. If you're going to invest the time and effort to straighten out your CR, I'd recommend you go for deletions or R1/Paid as agreed.
I definately agree with Jason. ANYTHING that says collection, chargeoff OR 180 days+ late is a huge negitive and will LIKELY prevent you from getting ANY reasonable credit. Why not attack this in a way to get it totally removed instead of worrying how it is worded? It has been done over and over again by many of the posters here. Just a thought.
1*I'd recommend you go for deletions 2*or R1/Paid as agreed. jason ==================== 1*No other way to go! 2*This is still no good and could lead to getting hit with jacked up insurance premiums and interest rates.
1*It will LIKELY prevent you from getting ANY reasonable credit 2*Why not attack this in a way to get it totally removed instead of worrying how it is worded? It has been done over and over again by many of the posters here. 3*Just a thought. pnwman | 444 posts ================================================================================================================================ 1*Even if you don't need or want credit you're still not out of the woods. 2*Why bother for any thing less when it won't help you? 3* It's more than that - it's the only to go. The END ************************* LB 59
but I have read that the last two years of your credit history carries more of a weighted average than older accounts Collection account or WHAT?? ============================ Another of the FICO farces. The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Collection account or WHAT?? First, why can't you post and quote the proper way? Your posts are ridiculously difficult to follow. Secondly, a person credit history over the past 2 years DOES count for more than older history does.
Re: Re: Re: Collection account or WHAT?? Secondly, a person credit history over the past 2 years DOES count for more than older history does. LKH ============================ NOT really it just looks so. The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Re: Collection account or WHAT?? POSTERS MESSAGE ============================ L Brown 59 Reply P.S. Couldn't be easier so, What's so difficult about it ?
