Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/28/2008 in all areas

  1. Why don't you do a search for CMI to try to figure out what has and has not worked?
    2 points
  2. Alright everyone, just spoke with Target and also had them Email me their answers. As I posted in another thread, I was "pre-approved" for the Target Visa in store this past weekend even though I already have the Target Red Card. Curious, I called up Target to ask if I could be converted to the Visa since I was already "pre-approved" for it. Here's the written version that I received via Email after our phone call: So there's an answer to the debate...At least the answer that I received. According to Target, today, Red Cards are not converted to the Visa. Not after 6-months, 1-year or 5-years. If you want the Visa, you'll have to apply for the Visa. Although BigJohnStud received the "conversion" that he posted about, it must've either been a fluke or prior to Target tightening up their approval requirements.
    1 point
  3. Definitely not an urban myth, this is/was target's main MO. I have said in the past that target customer service is terrible at speculating about thier own cards and giving accurate information. Further, I can see every line of that e-mail being completely accurate and still not meaning that the red card doesn't convert to VISA. It simply says that an approval for one does not mean an approval for the other. At any rate, I think I remember the app being the same and you find out which you got only afterwards, so there is no applying only for the Target Visa. Now on the flipside, I have read that TNB has been selling off parts of its portfolio and there is rumors that it will change how they do business or treat the redcards. So many of us will find out at the year mark how much teeth this information has. I'm still hopeful
    1 point
  4. I'm afraid I must disagree with willingtocope, as risky as that may be, when he is obviously so knowledgable and highly esteemed. In the initial dunning letter, the CA must tell you have 30 days to dispute the debt, etc. Overshadowing is when they say something in that letter or subsequent letters that contradicts, confuses, overshadows, or appears to shorten that dispute period. For example, if they say something like "If we don't receive your payment within 10 days, we'll do such and such." Do a Google search of "overshadowing dunning letter" and you'll find some examples. DH
    1 point
  5. Off topic somewhat, but who does the financing for TARGET? I have thought about applying for a visa, and from what i seen on the internet on the target website, it is like WALMART with their store card, and their discover cards, I would hope they would pull TU lol.... Let me know if u can!
    1 point
  6. I was also converted. And I didn't even ask for it. I opened my target red card when my credit was a disaster (just after BK), and then about a year later I received a "congratulations, you've been converted" letter with a new card with a VISA on it. My limit went from $500 to $1000. Then about ayear later, it went to $1500 and they added a paltry $75 cash advance option. Lol. If they don't convert, then that is a new policy. Many CIC old timers all had conversions.
    1 point
  7. Thank God it's finally out in the open. LTG, you gotta start fitting in here a bit better. I've pointed out before that you are the only one here who posts an individual reply to each and every post in a thread - which is super annoying - but you continue to do it even after a friendly suggestion not to. You resurrect dead threads. You post a LOT and we try to answer you but you just don't seem to be listening. This thread is pretty harsh toward you, I know - but maybe it will help you start getting more out of these boards without totally alienating everyone here.
    1 point
  8. Well, at the risk of getting kicked in the head again, let me say this thread is one of the more intelligent debates I have seen on the forum. FICO is a tool of the lenders -- invented many years ago to help protect lenders from allegations of illegal discrimination (racial, gender, geographic, ethnic, etc.). During the 50s and 60s when almost all loans were made by individuals who reviewed credit applications and credit reports by hand and eye, the result was credit decisions that discriminated. Some think the discrimination was intentional and some think not. Regardless, the results were clear and minorities and women were treated differently. FICO, like any entrepreneurial organization, saw a vacuum and created a product to fill a niche -- a mathematical method of evaluating credit that was neutral for gender and race. More importantly, the model passed the smell test of the Department of Justice and the Comptroller of the Currency. Banks flocked to using the model even if it was pricey. When they began to use the model, banks discovered they could drive down their costs. Instead of using experienced and senior loan officers to read loan files and make decisions based on years of experience and mistakes -- well, they could use front line clerks with the ability to read a 3 digit score and compare it to a test matrix and then approve or decline. With the advent of more sophisticated computers, one computer can do the job once held by hundreds of living human beings. FICO was developed for banks (and other lenders) to assess credit risk. CAs or Debt Buyers had nothing to do with it then and nothing to do with it today. Very flatly said, they just don't get a vote. The primary revenue source for the CRAs is the bank lenders. Yes, some CAs and DBs purchase credit data but it is by far the smaller chunk of revenue. The real party to be served is those who extend credit. Robert hit it on the head when he said that lenders are the drivers for the data. Anyone lending their own money (including BT and LTG) would insist on knowing the entire credit history -- not a version edited by the prospective borrower. That is the way of the world. If you want my money, you will do it my way. If not, go somewhere else. In response to LTG's question: DO all CAs have agreements with the CRA that they will not delete paid collections?. The answer is yes. It is a part of the basic agreement that every CRA client signs. Any CRA client who abuses that contract clause is at risk of losing their privileges. That is the real weapon of the CRA to keep CAs and DBs in line -- get too far out of line and they could find themselves cut off from the ability to report their tradelines to the CRA. As you might guess, such cut off might hurt collections. I am not saying that PFDs don't happen. They do. I don't think it happens a lot and I think it is mostly limited to smaller OCs, especially medical and other non-lender oriented debts. As a side note, there was a thread recently where someone reported that a CA told them it was illegal to do a PFD. That is not accurate. Such comments come from front line collectors who don't know better or are just repeating what they were told to say by someone higher up in the organization. For some reason, supervisors who actually understand think it is easier to just say it is illegal to do a PFD instead of just admitting that company policy forbids the practice -- they think they spend less time debating with the consumer. As a side side note, I do know one lawyer who has expressed to me a concern that a PFD does present significant legal risk to companies who do PFDs -- his position is that such activity is just begging for a discrimination lawsuit that will be expensive to defend and could result in a bunch of negative publicity. For what it is worth, I agree with BT (sit down, BT -- I don't want you to faint). FICO/FAKO does punish paid collections more than is warranted. I think there should be some recognition in the algorithm for the consumer dealing with the problem, albeit not in a timely or contractual manner. I don't know how to change it. Certainly, I think that it is wishful thinking that Congress will get involved. Seems to me there might be more mileage from a wave of calm and reasoned letters to the FTC. In any event, it is something that is not going to change quickly. Banks don't like or trust change -- which was one reason the Vantagescore did not get any traction. It is no secret to anyone that I take a dim view of certain practices encouraged on the forum and I have taken some abuse for expressing those views. My views have not changed. But, I will admit that I don't have any problem at all with anyone who tries to negotiate a PFD and wish them success in doing so.
    1 point
  9. you're welcome. When you send out letters, try and stay as far away from the sample letters as you can. to quote myself:
    1 point
  10. Most credit card companies offer somewhere between 15-25 billing cycles. FDR North (the credit processor that 80% of banks use) offers 21 billing cycles. Although cycle 21 is reserved for charged off accounts. Consequently, each billing cycle reports on a different date. Keep in mind, however, that what reports on the 27th one month might report on the 24th or 29th the next month. That is because billilng cycles of this nature are usually set by business days and not calendar days.
    1 point
  11. I don't mean to question the value of your thread, but I work for a company that essentially runs the backend for most of the major banks in the US and from what I can tell, very few of them report credit once a month anymore. They generally transmit to the CRAs every weeknight (during batch processing) and you'll notice it's usually sometime just after your due date or more likely just after your statement date. There may still be some CC issuers that report on the same day every month, but the big cards (BoA, Chase, Cap1, Citi, etc.) report based on your account alone giving each person a different reporting date. Knowing (and recording) that date can be critical if you're buying a house, car, etc., though, so you know which card to throw cash at first to raise your scores. I.e. if you're applying for a house next week, there's no sense in paying off a card that just reported, better to pay one that's about to report so it will maximize the chance of your score going up.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.