Dave, great job as usual--but one minor correction. Providian/WaMu credit cards provide you with a free FAKO and credit report updated monthly. This perk is one reason we picked up the otherwise unexciting WaMu card.
The Providian/WaMu cards give you a real FICO score from Fair Isaac, not a FAKO. But it's not the basic mortgage model FICO score that you can purchase from myfico.com. Providian/WaMu describes the score this way:
We display the Bankcard Industry Option FICO score. This score adjusts the Classic FICO score based on bankcard credit risk. The Classic FICO score measures a consumer's general credit risk; it is a tool that helps lenders predict how likely a consumer is to default on any credit obligation in the future. Large differences between the Classic FICO score and the Bankcard Industry Option FICO score indicate a consumer whose general credit risk is different than their bankcard credit risk.

The scores we're all interested in are the scores that our lenders see when reviewing our requests for credit. So far as I know, the Providian/WaMu card is the only way for us to see the Bankcard Industry Option FICO score. Fair Isaac sells a number of different scoring models, all called FICO scores. It's not just a question of FAKO versus FICO--it's FICO versus FICO as well!

Kemche said:What happens to your credit score if you consolidate multiple credit cards into one?That's an excellent example of the kind of more general question that's perfect for this thread, thanks for asking...

The answer is, it depends. It is affected by factors like:

-how long have the individual lines been open
-was the older or the newer one cosolidated TO
-do the closed line(s) stay on the credit report for the standard 7-year period, or are they removed earlier (as they often are)

Generally, it makes little difference at first. The reason is that unless the credit file is very full, closed lines generally stay on your account for a long time (7 years or so). During this time they have the same effect as open lines.

Eventually, the closed lines do fall off. But by that time, those lines may be amoung your oldest. If that's the case, their falling off will likely drop your score slightly.

There are special circumstances where consolidation can improve your score. And there can be other reasons to consolidate as well (e.g., wanting a 4th card at an issuer who only allows three). But generally, I'm a bigger fan of reallocation than consolidation. For example: rather than close a $15,000 AMEX to increase a $20,000 AMEX to $35,000, it's generally better to bring the preferred line to $34,000, leaving the other line open at $1,000.

Hmm, you may thinks suing is lame, but it works.

Me having a lower credit score IS an injury. Numerous courts, juries, and congress have said so. It isn't a HUGE injury, generally, which is why I don't get HUGE damages. I'm not saying you get denied and instantly sue. There is a step or two involved in there such as disputing, but if they verify inaccurate info, and it can be the SMALLEST inaccuracy or fail to follow the procedures, invite them down to court.

Lemme get this straight... you don't think getting denied a card is a big deal, since you can get copies of your reports for free?

I guess you are asserting that it should be on the consumer to religiously check their file and all responsibility ultimately falls on them, since they can pull their reports a total of 3 times a year.

Well, sorry, but I disagree. Consumers aren't 100% responsible for their file, since they have 0% control over it. The creditors are culpable in that they should report accurate information, and the credit bureaus are liable to the degree that they should CHECK the information and respond to disputes and other legal requirements.

Just because you can check your credit 3x doesn't mean anything. Most people are clueless about credit and credit reporting, so they could have their report 300 times a year, they wouldn't know what it means or what to do with it. Heck they may not even have a computer, let alone be on FW, debtorboards, creditboards, etc...

You aren't seeing my point, anyway. Suppose you DO pull your file, see some BS, dispute it, and it comes back....VERIFIED. Then what? You ask for a procedures request and get some generic form letter that has nothing to do with your dispute?

You are acting like I have any discretion over who reports, what is reported, etc...If you see better options, then by all means, take them, waste 6 months writing letters, and talking to people in India, and report back. Have you ever had to clean up your credit?

Suing IS a waste of time and money...but it isn't my time and money that are being wasted. If the CRA's want to limit their time and expenses I'd entertain a reasonable settlement offer. ALL costs are billable to the defendant, if you can prove 1 violation, and you are generally free from having to worry about getting hit with atty's fees, so costs to you are minimal at best. I'd pay $350 to file, as opposed to 1% higher on a 100k mortgage. Do the math. It is cheaper to sue than to have bad credit.

As far as time, what do you have to do? Research the violations, write it up, which takes maybe an hour or two, if you are starting from scratch, and fire it off. An hour or two and $350 is all it takes. Most people spend more time looking for a new car, and CERTAINLY will spend more $$$$ if they have bad credit.

Outside of that, most of your time is spent waiting on the postman. Each letter has like a 20-30 day window inbetween there, and that is assuming there are no motions, preliminary hearings, etc..You have lots and lots of time to prepare your case, and writing up a letter or two every month, REALLY just isn't going to ruin my social life.

I haven't been sued yet, but if anyone did, they'd have one heckuva time finding me, and if they did find me, win, and try to collect, they'd have an even more fun time finding and seizing my assets. Considering I would probably defend myself, it isn't going to cost me much of anything, and like I said the time involved really is overstated. I think that whole "lawsuits take so much time" is another lawyerism to dissuade pro-se litigants.

As a business owner, if you are getting sued all the time, that may be a hint, you need to EXAMINE YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICES. They can depose me all they want, there is a section in the Flyingifr method on that. Who do you think PAYS for depositions, btw? It isn't me, and depositions aren't free. Ask me my name, go ahead! I'd spend 10 pages telling you the scottish roots of my last name, the story associated with it, the color of my tartan, the family crest and motto, how my parents came up with my middle name, how to correctly spell and pronounce it, how all males in my family are named, etc... Want me to produce something at the deposition? Sweet! I'll take every scrap of paper in my house, dump it out, and just start talking about each one as I say "it's got to be here somewhere..." They can send their discovery, and outside of a few questions, they'll get my objections, and we can talk about that. Time = billable hours = cost to defendant = me being happy. Heck, I might call their hired counsel and chat for a few hours about the case.

Changing venue? Please, do yourself a favor and READ the FCRA. You can't. The venue is where the injury took place, which is my location. Try to change it all you want. That will just result in more costs.

I don't know how I would go broke if the case doesn't cost me anything. If you hire some dog bite atty that is milking you for fees, then yeah, it could happen.

Only sue if you can prove your case and know what you are doing? I think I said that. Proving your case isn't hard, at all. Get a rejection letter, and a 2 copies of your reports, before disputing and after. That is all you need. As far as a corporation outspending you, I think they'll accomplish that by merely answering the lawsuit. If they want to spend 50k on me, by all means go ahead, but in my experience, they want to get it over as quick as possible. ALL I can do is cost them money, and a small army of determined plaintiff's can do more harm to their bottom line than the FTC EVER could. A 1M FTC penalty is nothing, but 10 Johnson V MBNA's. If they spend 1k on 1000 cases, which isn't hard at all, they have surpassed 1M, and spending 1k on a lawsuit is fairly easy. Finding 1000 angry people to sue isn't that hard either. Are you still in the mood to spend me to death?

I love it, people suing is now a stupid tit for tat lawsuit. I'll be sure to tell that to all the victims of identity theft that spend hundreds of hours and years on a case by being silly and writing letters, calling creditors, etc... when they could have just sued everyone and made their point clear in 6 months. Lost a house because some collector mistook you for someone else? Quit whining!

What exactly is lawyerbabble? Cases are generally won or lost on their merits, not lawyerbabble. Another misconception. "oooh, they got a lawyer, and they are going to outlawyer me with all their legaleze" Please. Spare me. I have generally been unimpressed with most lawyers I have dealt with on both sides of the law. They are clueless, plain and simple, and probably overconfident, thinking they can pull a snowjob on a prose. If you know your stuff, have a little confidence, and can prove your case, you stand a pretty good shot.

Lemme ask you this:

Have you ever sued anyone?

Ever have to correct anything on your report?

Why is suing bad? Just because it is expensive for the companies and takes a little time? If it is so bad, then why do collection lawyers go in and file cases with zero evidence by the hundreds?

The system is stacked against you. You go ahead and write the CEO of each credit bureau a letter every time they do something stupid. I have another way that WILL DEFINATELY get his attention.

Do you honestly think that these are simple errors? Do you honestly think that Crap 1 doesn't know that not reporting your credit limit hurts your score? Do you think they haven't figured that out? What do you think they care about more? Any damage they do to your score, or ensuring people don't steal their clients away with a well placed BT offer? If you dispute it, it will change for a month to your limit, then go back to 0 or at best your high balance. The Credit bureaus don't care, but you think I should write their CEO? I tell you what I am going to do, I am going to sue the credit bureaus and demand 1k for every month my limit wasn't reported after they verified my true limit. The only reason why they do it is because they know they can get away with it because there are more people like you than there are people like me.

For everyone that thinks suing makes you a bad person or whatever, Congress DESIGNED the system this way. They knew there were problems with credit reporting, and they couldn't have the FTC handle each and every case, so they gave you some weapons to beat up on the credit bureaus, and SUE THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. That is the way it is SUPPOSED to happen. Now, when you get some whimpy consumers that would rather start a chain letter club with the credit bureaus for 2 years than sue them when you have documented violations, the system doesn't really work like it should.

do you have a link to the WaMu site on this?

Unfortunately, the only link I can find requires that you be logged on to your own account at the Providian site. Once logged on, go to your Credit Profile tab and click on the link for FICO Score Help. A popup window appears with the information, but the actual link for that has a hidden session ID and encrypted information and uses the https:// protocol. I grabbed a screenshot for verification though!

Oh, hell astro, you are no fun. I'll PM my response.

Great thread Dave. Thanks for all of the effort you're putting into it. I'm sure this will help a lot of people.

Fantastic idea Dave-- I'm really impressed with the work you put into this. It really should be a sticky.


You may want to add a warning about credit cards that don't report limits (like Citi Aadvantage)-- a sneaky way that issuers have to artificially lower scores. It's usually a good idea to pay those off monthly in advance so that no balance appears on your report.

Also a warning about HELOC utilization. Most report like a credit card and high utilization can thrash a score.

I got a better way to deal with companies that don't report limits. Dispute it once, and sue them if the limit is not reported.

Hi, I would really appreciate any kind of help regarding the below matter:

I'm 19, and do not have any credit whatsoever. I applied for a bank card through WAMU, but got rejected due to lack of credit. To top that off, my parents' credit isn't so great either so I doubt they will be able to cosign for any kind of credit for me.

I want to begin my credit, but I don't see anything I can do to actually get any credit.

Any suggestions would be great, thank you!

I apologize, I didn't realize that the thread wasn't for personal questions. I wasn't able to delete this post though. Sorry.

Again, many thanks for the thoughtful replies and kind words...


Thanks for the followup codename47. I think this quotation warrants emphasis: For everyone that thinks suing makes you a bad person or whatever, Congress DESIGNED the system this way. They knew there were problems with credit reporting, and they couldn't have the FTC handle each and every case, so they gave you some weapons to beat up on the credit bureaus, and SUE THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. That is the way it is SUPPOSED to happen.Now one might quibble with whether or not anyone intended for people to sue along the lines of the methods you indicate. But it's tough to argue against the idea that we consumers didn't ask for a system in which suing is the only recourse that gets probable results. And if the CRCs and creditors cleaned up their act, then the issue would be moot.


burgerwars said: One thing I learned is you can't just dispute something with the credit bureaus, but also deal with the credit grantors. Even disputed information you have removed can eventually re-appear, if the credit grantor doesn't also correct their records.Absolutely...a very important point. what Wescom did is update their computers to never show I was ever late with this charge, which then eventually got propagated back to the credit bureaus. My previous perfect credit was back to perfect again. and if all creditors were customer-friendly in the way that Wescom was with you, the tactics against creditors that codename47 describes wouldn't be necessary.


CreditGuy, thanks for the screencap. Very interesting. If anyone else has other links that break down the differences between these types of FICO scores, please post. You also wrote, For my next app-o-rama, I'll be paying off smaller cards in full and larger ones to under 50% utilization, using funds from my HELOC. Last time I did this, last November, my true FICO score from myFICO.com rose over 30 points even though I owed the same amount of money overall.This is an excellent idea. Once I manage to get to a separate post on thread on tactics, I'll try to elaborate...but I'm certain this tactic will serve you well.


InterestedOnlooker said: My understanding (which could be wrong) & my personal experience point towards the idea that husbands & wives---generally---have completely separate credit histories except on joint accounts & accounts where one is an authorized user on the other's. Is this correct?Yes. It isn't link income taxes, where the entire file can effectively be "joint". Credit reports, and (personal) credit scores, are ALWAYS tied to the individual. Thus, husbands & wives should generally try to keep their CCs separate so as to generate the best FICO scores possible (through judicious use of 0% CC offers, good CC utilization rate histories, etc) & so as to maximize the amount of overall credit that they can receive. Is this correct?Yes, in that you never want "joint" CCs. There can be good ways to use "individual" cards with a spouse (or other close, trusted associate) as an "authorized user". See the OP for more on this. Because of this scoring situation, is there ever a time when it's more prudent for only one spouse to have title to a house or car that has a loan on it? Absolutely. Before we set up trusts for our rental properties (which really are the better way to go), we had one rental in Ms. DH's name only, along with the loans that followed. Of course there are other issues at play here besides credit, of course...Strangely, when we were purchasing a house together recently & I called our bank to wire the settlement $ & I got grilled about whether or not I'd ever had a mortgage before or any student loans or any other loans (evidently they saw a scanty credit history even though I have been a joint loan applicant for our previous mortgages & car loans & we own our bank accounts jointly). My guess is that, because my name was listed 2nd on the accounts, only his name was showing up in the computer & I was seen as potentially a scammer instead of a legit party to the transaction. Weird no? Honestly, it offended me a bit. As well it might!

My guess is that you have little or no credit history reporting in your own right. Many women in particular face this problem. In many jurisdictions, it's only been within the past generation that a wife could even borrow without her husbands permission! For this reason among others, it is an excellent idea for EVERY spouse to make sure that she (or he) has credit established IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. Even aside from obvious instances like divorce or financial blackmail, many loving, trusting marriages in which there never was a financial problem end in MAJOR problems when one spouse dies and the other is without a credit history. I've just updated the OP to reflect this (section II F currently).


LaJollaInvestor, the "workaround" reference and capital one example in section II C of the OP is meant to address the "high limit" issue you reference. I'm not familiar with strategies that might be specifically available for the Citi Aadvantage card you mention, but would be happy to include any of those as well.

The HELOC reporting piece is an interesting case. I can testify that there's been a MAJOR change in the way these are (a) reported and (b) effect most scoring models in the last few years. I've just updated the OP to reflect this (section II D currently).


ProfessorEd said: According to the Citi Credit Monitoring Service, the average credit line on all of your accounts makes a difference. Thanks for the quotation. Alas, if you read their explanation carefully, it isn't so clear. As you quoted them:Having accounts with a high credit limit or loan amount is a positive factor, because it indicates to a lender that other lenders have trusted you with a lot of credit in the past.Note that this doesn't say higher AVERAGE, just "accounts with a high credit limit." My guess is that Citi's monitoring service does indeed use an average limit/loan size as one of its inputs. But it doesn't follow that any (much less most) actual CRC models use "average" line size as a key indicator.

Now, as I said in the OP, models are always evolving, and they're clouded in mystery...so I certainly wouldn't say that no one looks at "average" line size. I'll simply argue that in the absence of evidence, we shouldn't infer that the CRCs actually do care about this number.My wife just got a note from saying her Bank of America new card had been approved and they were reducing a MBNA card in my name from $106,000 to $101,000 to take account of this. Very interesting. If I might, when exactly was this? I ask because I just got a line increases from BofA in which this didn't happen, and given my credit limits with both I'd be a likely candidate for this.

Also, that mammoth line size is truly impressive. If you don't mind, please consider adding your two cents to the "LARGE credit limits" thread listed in the OP...it would be the first >$100K line that anyone would have commented on, and would be of much interest to many of us.


coolnad17 said, I want to begin my credit, but I don't see anything I can do to actually get any credit....I apologize, I didn't realize that the thread wasn't for personal questions. I wasn't able to delete this post though. Sorry.No need for apologies. This question is general enough that it will apply to many...and that's the main criterion I wanted to hold the line on in this thread. I think your question is important, and I'll try to address it soon.