I've reciently seen a few postings regarding which banks report secured accounts, and which of those report them as "Secured" I am wondering if we are making too much of this point. If the line of credit is a big one such as $2,500.00 I could see concern. However on an account of $500.00 does it make a big difference? I think we should remember that a trade line on your credit report is still a trade line. If Bank of America has a requirement of 2 trade lines with 1 year history on each (for example) then do you really think if one says "Secured" it wouldn't count? I am quite sure you still would gain a BofA Visa. Remember Mortgages are also secured, secured with the real estate of the property. When you think about it probably 50% of all loans are secured in one way or another! Also I feel some of you a relying too much on others, and not enough from the source. Questions regarding if a bank reports,and how the report shows should be directed at the bank. If you then want a confirmation from others go ahead, but remember, some people tell you what they think they know, and not what is the truth!
RE: "SECURED" on cre Actually I read someone that secured lines can be considred negative as a secured card would usually indicate past credit problems.....
RE: "SECURED" on cre I think you are right about that. That's why I recommend going with a bank that does not flag accounts as secured with the credit bureaus.
RE: "SECURED" on cre "I think we should remember that a trade line on your credit report is still a trade line." Logically speaking there is no disputing this statement. Unfortunately, in the real world, the credit industry which demonstrates time and again their habit of narrowmindness and shortsightness has deemed "secured" cards as negative and penalises you heavily (especially in regards to credit scoring).
RE: "SECURED" on cre I question the veracity of the statement that secured accounts are penalized. There is no FICO adverse account reason like "secured bankcard," or "too many sub-prime accounts." If you use a secured account wisely, it should be just as positive - in terms of a tradeline - as an unsecured account.
RE: "SECURED" on cre Again, I agree it 'should' make no difference in whichever manner its listed BUT according to virtually every post and article I've seen on this matter there is a unanimity of opinion that having a secured card listed as "secured" penalises you. Of course I would be VERY HAPPY if this were just another popular misconception (there are so many), and while it very well may be the case that Fair Isaac does not list this as a negative whose to say the CRA's don't. But at this point I have no factual PROOF either way. Though, considering the past behavior of the credit industry I have no doubt that they have set up their application screens online to heavily penalise individuals whose credit files report "secured" cards and 'feel' that credit officers are heavily prejudiced against those holding such cards, considering them "a bad risk". I would be most interested to hear what the true credit experts have to say about this and would especially love to hear from somebody in at least a management position at one of the major creditors (most reps don't have a clue as to one's really going on in their company).
RE: "SECURED" on cre Possibly if you went into a loan officer who ran your report and browsed over it while you wait on your knees in front of him/her chanting "I'm not worthy" they might notice the "Secured" on the report. However if you apply for a card from the big banks I think the whole process is so informal that a computer just adds the FICO Score and approves or declines The fact is that this card will list a trade item, and list the payments. Future creditors base there risk on payments made so in this regard the secured card would still satisfy the main requirements. Also the secured card can be used to get a store card or two so it's not the only thing on a credit history. I can't see a fico programme giving 300 points for a Dept. Store Card, and 380 points for a gas card, but then taking a "Secured Card" and actually giving a negative 100 points so your score only comes to 580 instead of the 750 points you would get with a card that says nothing.
RE: "SECURED" on cre I think Michael is right. Online or fico only apps dont care, but more carefully examined aps just might
RE: "SECURED" on cre Michael, There is a valid reason we ask these questions. The source often lies! Actually the problem is misinformed customer service reps. They will tell you anything to get you off the phone. they often must meet a quota and my questions seem a waste of time to them. I had a MasterCrad once and the issuer swore that it would appear on my credit. I kept it 4 months and it never did appear. I walked across the street from my job and visited with a Wells Fargo staff person. he did not know if his bank's secured card was reported or not. He asked others and they did not know! Often credit card banks contract customer service to another company. These people have no knowledge and can't tell you where to get it. If you call the bank, they insist that you call customer service. I have learned a lot of accurate information from this board!
RE: "SECURED" on cre You said it Keith This is definately the biggest problem I have encountered with the credit industry and was what brought me unto this site in the first place. Now I will admit that I have been able to use several companies' incompetent reps to my advantage, mainly by siicing the credit bureaus after them, but similarly I have had to waste plenty of time going over enough persons and departments heads (the names of EVERYBODY in a corporation is available if you just look for it) until I finally got the definate, factual information I was looking for (usually in their legal department, which kinda sucks cause who wants to deal with lawyers when you don't have to). Probably the most ridiculous situation occured when I applied for a Diner's Card (the free airport lounges located around the world more than makes up for the annual fee), whereupon, I received an UNBELIEVEABLE response that read "Thank you for your recent Application for a Diners Club card. Unfortunately, we must decline your Application. If you have additional information blah blah yadda" Yeah, I know beyond ludicrous. I first attempted to reach the individual that signed for this incredulous, frankly illegal (according to the FCRA) response. To no surprise the individual in question had since left the department (rather amusing how many times this sort gets transferred or no longer works in the company in question), instead I had some rep telling me that the true reason was because I had not one year credit history. When questioned by myself "where on the application does it state I must have 1+ years of credit history, the response blew me away, "we are under no obligation to state any qualifications or rules if we decide not to" meaning they can make up the rules as they go along. Showing the response and describing the conversation to one and all, my plight piqued the interest of a lawyer of a friend of mine who drafted a letter on his company letterhead and called Diners Club up on this. The end result was the lawyer received a most in-depth collection of all the terms, regulations and rules that the company had to offer and a promise to discipline (read fire) the rep in question. As for myself, no such happy ending, they stood by their decision. Of course anybody who has been on this site for any length of time has seen a passel of various creditor companies' reps pass by, many offering total misinformation or outright lying, so figure if they do that here when they have the time and are at ease you can imagine what they will do when 'under the gun' at work. Probably, the single most telling case of misinformation comes from the mortgage industry and its lenders and brokers regarding their adamant insistance that an individual seeking a mortgage MUST pay all collections and write-offs regardless of the validity or age of the claim. With the exception of one Mortgage Banker, named David W (who deals with FHA and Fannie Mae loans and posted some messages here last month) I have yet to find so much as one other individual in this industry who will so much as defend this nightmare practise of Cross Collecting. I definately concur that I receive more accurate information on this credit site than any other one I visit. Perhaps because the absence of "personalites" with their agendas" as you'll find elsewhere.
RE: "SECURED" on cre I do agree that we all have things to share, and I was not aware of the amount of lies the csr's give. One way around this is to ask to speak with a supervisor, or someone in the actual credit dept.
RE: "SECURED" on cre Seems simple enough, certainly logical. Until confronted by either incompetent or lying CSR's who claim 1. It is not possible 2. They do not have the number of the supervisor 3. They have no supervisors 3. Pass you around to another rep who procedes to do the same who ... 4. Hang up on you As for attempting to reach the "credit department" responses range from 1. Its not possible 2. Pass you around to a thousand departments 3. Keep you on hold forever 4. There is no credit department 5. Hang up on you Numerous posts of this nature describing these and other outrages in explicit detail. There have been times when supposed csr's of various companies have "claimed" they they get fined or risk being fired if they pass you along to a supervisor. On one occasion when attempting to cancel a credit card because the company (or at least some individual in this department) was asking me to furnish a ridiculous amount of personal and unnecessary information. I was informed I could only deal with the individual who had placed a hold on my account from the get-go, I asked for that individual "not there" I asked for a supervisor "no supervisors there or available". Trying to put me through hoops I see. Well f*ck them off went one certified letter which included my cut-up card and my impression of their csr's and overall departments' incompetence to the head of their department who name I procured, another to the legal department the rest to the CRA's whereupon using everything I had learned on this credit sites to make sure I would not be screwed in the future and it would be reported as "closed by consumer's request" But this rarely deters me. My FIRST thought and practise is to go over somebody's head (a practise which is quite anathema in the corporate structure and world and usually leads to being dismissed regardless or especially if your right; is it any wonder I've worked for myself the past decade) As I mentioned in my previous post, the names of everybody can found (the real one's not the phony one's given as the signatory on most letters), mail rooms and executive secretaries can be bypassed entirely due to the judicious use of certified and registered letters and couriers, I've even used hand delivered telegrams on several occasions. Many times the only way to get a response from particularly recalcitrant and instransigent companies is via dealing directly and OFFICIALLY with their legal department. I found I've had to resort to this with two of the CRA's as well. It really sucks when about the only way you can stop many companies from "jerking your chain" is to play hardball and that means their legal department.
RE: "SECURED" on cre Your advice on dealing with these companies is great, and invaluable. However when you started this post the topis was finding out the information from a telephone rep, and if not there supervisor or the credit dept. I'm sure you will agree with me that if you are calling a new company to start a new relationship with and you get jerked around then the best thing to do is not do business with them, as there are plenty of good companies out there!
RE: "SECURED" on cre I concur. Unfortunately, for those who are relegated/trapped in the sub sub prime category (not myself fortunately) good companies are hard to find.
