var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
August 11, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

Why don't they just damn well say it plainly? these credit bureaus made their fortune off our very personal info, the least they could do is provide even somewhat of a service.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
August 11, 2009 4:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: That's just it -- it's not YOUR personal information. It's the consolidated information of all of the banks that you, at your own option, have chosen to do business with. The banks voluntarily give that information to the reporting agencies. It's not YOUR personal information at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 11, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: @balthisar: @rpm773: It was done for MANY years before they existed

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
August 11, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gaywolverine: It sure was. But back in those days skin color, sex, town reputation/standing, and whether you knew the bank manager was what used to build your profile.

That's not to say all of that nonsense above has been completely worked out of the system, but at least the data being collected now isn't racist or sexist or requires a membership in a network of good 'ol boys.

I think several people in this thread are confusing those collecting the data with those applying it. Experian et al collect the data. Amex, Visa, State Farm, and apparently your employer buy it and apply it. If you have an issue with how it's being used, at least direct your energies toward the right parties - the creditors. Getting angry at the data is stupid. It's your data.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
August 11, 2009 4:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar:

So if you hired me as a contractor does that mean I can sell all the info I see while working in your home for 6 months (I have jobs that long). Would you be happy if I set up a booth outside on the sidewalk and profited from all the info I saw in your home \"because me seeing inside your home was a necessary part of you hiring me\"? Maybe I could sell information on your kids, or just like them, info on your bank statements I saw sitting on the table, your ok with that right because of your own \"option\" you gave that up.

I'm not asking for anything more than clear and up to date statements on the accuracy of the information they hold and profit from, not insider codes. This is not asking much. Wake up, stop being so docile people, stand up for your rights and dignity. If you cant even type out a proper sentence in a situation as minor as this than how much more so in something of consequence? Docile slave subservient sheep to their govt and corporations are whats killing America (coming from a Canadian).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MsAnthropy
August 11, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123:

The credit bureaus are bad. LexisNexis is worse. Ugh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MsAnthropy: Congress needs to make your LexisNexis record fully available to you any time you request it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FDCPAGuy
August 11, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MsAnthropy:
Heck yes LN is worse. Their data mining and info is just plain scary.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FDCPAGuy: Data mining and demographic clustering are true scary in that companies will charge what the market bears and will segment the market to assure they can charge the max...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kduhtoe
August 11, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: I thought this was stating it more plainly/clearly.

Pay on time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
August 11, 2009 3:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kduhtoe:

You mean be a good slave and don't question your maser and you'll be saved the whip? Your trained well but sir I am not like you. I have good credit and pay all my bills but that does not blind me to the corruption and injustice of the whole industry. If anything its these goons like these companies who don't pay their bills and have ruined the world economy and were bailing them out. So in the end either way were the master.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 11, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: How do you think you are the master.You have a credit profile just by existing. If you do not use credit and went for a job, you could be denied the job because you have no credit history, maybe that means you are not legal in this country, or spent many years in prison not utilizing credit. If you own your own business, and go to get auto insurance you can be charged more for having a zero credit score. Credit scores are NOT just about paying on time. Pay every bill you have on time, and you still might have a bad \"predictive\" score. Credit scores are based on the liklihood to continue future payments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 11, 2009 12:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: Paying your bills isn't enough. You have to play their credit game or your rating is hurt. We lived simply, had one loan we paid on time but no other credit or accounts and it hurt our credit worse than any other time in our lives.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FDCPAGuy
August 11, 2009 2:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kduhtoe:

As much as I love your answer there's much more to it than just payment history.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 11, 2009 11:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cmdrsass: They are using my personal information to make a profit. I wish some court would declare your credit, bank and purchase records are your personal intellectual property and stand this whole mess on its head.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
spanky
August 11, 2009 12:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kduhtoe: Pay what on time?

You do see that most of these have nothing to do with delinquency, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
August 11, 2009 12:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Presuming, by your post, that if such a ruling came to pass that you would deny the credit bureaus the access to collect such data you (at least a their own discretion), how would creditors determine your credit history and whether they should do business with you?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
August 11, 2009 12:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773:


Yeah, don't bother, he clearly hasn't thought this through.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
August 11, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: I agree 100%. Someone needs to develop the legal theory and test it. (can you imagine the legal weight that the credit industry would bring to bear against that argument in court, though? - it would make the RIAA look like lightweights)

I can imagine saying to Sears: \"This transaction between us is for the transfer of a refrigerator only. You may not access my credit history, record this transaction in any manner, access, use, or sell use my personal information in any way. If you don't agree to this, then I'll find someone else to buy the fridge from\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
August 11, 2009 12:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@David in Brasil:


Sure, you can say that to Sears, and if you pay cash, then you're welcome to do so.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
August 11, 2009 9:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123:

And animals provide a butcher's ability to exist. Doesn't mean they're getting any favors from him.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
August 11, 2009 2:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: That doesn't make you any more of a customer. You're the customer of whoever you're voluntarily taking money/services/credit from, and they're the ones providing you a service. The credit bureaus are just middlemen employed by creditors, and they really owe you nothing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 11, 2009 1:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: They owe their client ACCURATE information and to fix errors in a timely manner. The current system does not do that. This means THEIR errors cost their clients the opportunity to lend money to people who would pay their bills. If their \"predictive\" system worked so well, why are delinquencies at an all time high? I think that means they are failing miserably.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
August 11, 2009 3:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:

No, they have a service to me because their ineptitude could end up costing a person thousands of dollars - even their job - if they mess up the info their profiting from, their activities are possible only by me and affect me. It is very much mine and all of ours business.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Quake 'n' Shake
August 11, 2009 4:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: You're really overthinking this. If you don't want to be at the \"mercy\" of the credit bureaus, you don't have to be. Shred your cards, pay cash for everything and save up for the big purchases, just like your great-grandparents did...
Granted, that's not as easy as using credit, but it's 100% doable.
Credit extended to you is a benefit. Those doing that want to simply cover their asses. Seems fair to me. Granted, there seems to be no \"hard and fast\" rules as to what specific aspects on your record affect what the banks/credit cards/land lords will say. However, as a rule, if you pay on time, and don't overextend yourself, you'll be okay.
I acknowledge that mistakes on on credit reports are costly to consumers, and often times not the fault of the consumer (hence the word \"mistake.\"). However, that's usually not the fault of the bureaus. They only report was is reported to them (there's that \"middle-man\" thing again). You're ire seems somewhat misdirected here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 11, 2009 1:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quake 'n' Shake: What happens when an employer denies you a job because you have no credit score? Your insurance gets jacked up because you have no score. You do not fit a \"predictable\" model, so you are now high risk. Try getting a mortgage with a zero credit score. The bureaus are SELLING information, and when it is proven to be inaccurate or STOLEN, they should be sued out of existence.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Quake 'n' Shake
August 11, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gaywolverine: Not all employers deny you because of no credit score.
And my argument was to live \"without\" credit, so your mortgage argument is moot, as one would not be applying for one, as that's a form of credit.

The bureaus are a service setup to assist lenders, not consumers. They want that information to be accurate. If a bureau becomes known for inaccurate information, they will lose their customer base (i.e., the lenders). They act in good faith, simply relaying information reported to them. They do not have the ability to verify every individuals information. Hence the onus on the consumer to check their credit annually.
Is that fair? I don't know. But it's the only workable situation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bob
April 14, 2010 12:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

>They want that information to be accurate.

Only if it cost them little to do so. As long as they believe 80% of their information is accurate, what do they care?

>If a bureau becomes known for inaccurate information, they will lose their customer base (i.e., the lenders).

No they big 3 are the only game in town. If they give you information is a real accuracy rate of only around 80% where are you going to turn?

>They act in good faith, simply relaying information reported to them.

They have an responsibility to make sure the person reporting to them is credible and has evidence of some sort. Just because you tell me that Bill Gates is delinquent on his account with you doesn't mean I should automatically put that into his personal credit account with no question asked. But that is what is happening to millions of folks everyday.

It is nothing but a racket and the only game in town.

What needs to happen is that WE need to be owners of OUR information but Congress will have to be the ones to make it happen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 11, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quake 'n' Shake: People have to have a job and have to have certain types of insurance. You can't opt out unless you go live in a cave. There are even some utilities that are looking at people's credit when they open an account.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
August 11, 2009 3:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:

Right, you don't think my, yours, ours, the worlds credit history and very personal information is a commodity and has real value? It obviously is because they have built a multi billion dollar industry around our *personal* information. If they want to collect, sell and make a living off my business, I and we deserve a say. They should report to us first and formost, mailing credit reports (account statements) monthly without charge and without asking for the privilege of using, profiting and distributing our personal information. People, stand up for your rights and dignity.

One bad thing that is in error on your credit report could cost you tens of thousands of dollars if you get a worse rate on a mortgage. Private for profit businesses with so much power over other peoples lives should have *much* more accountability and clarity in their operations, not just reporting to those whose own best interest is to have your credit report in as bad of a condition as possible so they can higher profits off you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 11, 2009 11:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: ..and job prospects and insurance. Your credit report has morphed into a multi-headed beast that can ruin your life. Not to mention disclose information that it should not like health issues if you end up with medical things on your credit report.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
spanky
August 11, 2009 1:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: This is something I can't quite figure out. Why don't people sue credit reporting agencies for libel more often when false information in their credit reports causes them damage?

I was looking around for any information about this a while back, and all I could find was a business or two that tried this.

I suspect they have some kind of protection against this or something, just because so many credit reports have faulty information in them, and that information is used for so many things, it seems that if they were held responsible for damages, they wouldn't be in business long.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jevia
August 11, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spanky: Its difficult to prove causation. You have to prove that you were damaged solely by the false information (which also actually has to be false, i.e. if you do have high balances on your credit cards, you can't say that the credit report is falsely saying you have high debts). If say your insurance rate increases or you lose out on a job, you have to find a way to prove that the insurance rate increased only because of the credit report, or that you didn't get the job only because of the credit report. That can be very difficult to do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
spanky
August 11, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jevia: If you're denied credit or employment, or if your rates are increased because of negative information on your credit report, you are informed of the action and the reason for it.

That's what this article is about.

It's a clear statement of causation, and the economic damages are usually very clear as well. (The thing that makes libel cases so difficult is that it's usually hard to show quantifiable economic damages.)

And yes, of course, in the US, the information has to be inaccurate for the claims to be libelous. That's what I meant by 'false information' and all.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
August 11, 2009 1:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Article:

The risk codes will be listed in the order of importance, so the higher up on the list in your letter, the more significant it is.

Wait, does the lower number/higher on the list mean the code has more weight, or the higher number/lower on the list?

The article says the former, but I have a hard time believing the items up at the top have more weight than those at the bottom, by merit of their descriptions.

For example \"Serious delinquency\" and \"Derogatory public record or collection filed\" sound a lot more serious than \"Too many accounts with balances\"

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
FDCPAGuy
August 11, 2009 2:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773:

No it means that they are in order. Typically under the score on non-consumer reports you will see these codes with explanations on some style sheets. There are usually 4 of them the first on the list being the most important and the last on the list being the least important.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
August 11, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FDCPAGuy: So it looks like the list provided in the article isn't displaying the gravity of each code from least to greatest or greatest to least. Rather, it's just a listing of the possible reason, with their code number.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FDCPAGuy
August 11, 2009 3:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773:
Correct and there are different codes as well (not on the list) and also some are different numbers on the reports I have seen. Of course all the ones I see are FICO04 so I don't know if they will be different when FICO08 (09 lol) is mass adopted. Most of these are self explanatory but if anyone wants something 'gumped down' let me know.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 11, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The new reason people can't get a loan now is because no one ever granted them a loan.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
rushevents
August 11, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Ummm that's always been around.

Getting credit when you have none has always been a bit of a challenge. This is why they want cosigners on twenty somethings' car loans.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
August 12, 2009 3:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rushevents: wouldn't need'm if the public hadn't swallowed the utter bs that $15K-$30K is a starter car.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rushevents
August 12, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@the_wiggle: Amen - I have a personal theory that cars got much more expensive once the public began seeing the car as a \"payment\" rather than an expensive purchase.

I wonder if there is a way we can look that up?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
August 12, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rushevents: Yes, GM's popularity comes from offering luxury (compared to Ford's pared down Model T) through GMAC financing. Ford insisted you pay for the car in full, but offered relatively cheap cars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 11, 2009 1:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Hahahaha Thats what happened to me when I tried to get a car loan. I had to settle for a special \"Fresh Grad\" offer from VW.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
gman863
August 11, 2009 3:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's important to remember these factors also affect what interest rate you'll pay if you are approved.


Before shredding \"pre-approved\" offers, I usually take a moment to read them. Lately, many have been ambiguous about the interest rate - usually a statement that reads something like, \"your rate will be between 9.9% and 19.9% depending on your credit history\".


Since the lender is killing trees and spending money sending me the offer, my credit score obviously peaked their interest. The bitch is figuring out how much interest they want to charge.


The best thing to do when applying for any type of credit is to know your credit score before you apply and before the lender runs a real credit inquiry that puts a hit on your file. Once you know this, contact the lender and demand to know your actual interest rate based on telling them, \"If my credit score is 750, what will my rate be?\". (NOTE: Always use a \"what if\" score that's slightly lower than your actual score - I've found my score may change +/- 20 points in a month for no apparent reason.


This backs the lender into a corner and (unless you're way off on your actual score) will usually guarantee you get their best rate. I did this a few years ago when shopping for my mortgage. It cut out most of the bullshit on getting the best rate without killing my score due to excessive inquiries in the process.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
August 12, 2009 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gman863: you won't be told. neither frontline nor most managers have that information, of the few that do, most are literally not allowed to speak w/o running the very real risk of being fired.

//banking industry

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gman863
August 13, 2009 4:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@the_wiggle:


I beg to differ. In phone conversations over the past 3 years with reps from CapOne, BoA and Chase, I have been able to get them to share my score. Two months ago, a rep from BoA (nee' Countrywide), spit out my score from all three bureaus at my request while trying to pitch me on refinancing my mortgage.


As for Bohemiam's dog, I believe the bank may have made an error. With a FICO score of 780+, I have a feeling the offers I get are legit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 11, 2009 12:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gman863: My dog gets pre-approved credit card offers. It may have nothing to do with your credit score.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
howie_in_az
August 11, 2009 4:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Too few bank revolving accounts
Too many bank or national revolving accounts

OK, so what's the magic number of revolving accounts that consumers should have open at any given point?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
August 11, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@howie_in_az: The credit board geeks and app-o-rama geeks could tell you to the $ amount decimal point % wise versus # of accounts.


I had Progressive Insurance rate me on -NOT- having enough open revolving accounts- 5 was their magic number. I spoke to an underwriter and asked why? In an indirect and round-a-bout way, she told me that people who are financially astute tend to file more insurance claims than people who have messy finances.


She also said specifically that the open account issue carried a very minor weight compared to prior accident and traffic ticket history.


End all of it was that I got a free credit report and had to pay 2x my prior insurance rate (unmarried vs married on the prior policy and only one rider versus two on my prior policy).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
August 11, 2009 11:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@howie_in_az: i'm no expert, but i think if you keep it single digits, you'll be ok. under 5? even better.

i read thru a report the other day - 27 credit cards. 27.

most of them hadn't been used in a looooong time, but come on - who needs that many cards?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 11, 2009 1:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Probably was churning them. One of my relatives once tried to sell that theory to me. I'm like, no thanks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 11, 2009 1:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@giantnegro: Whats funnier is that some free pseudo-report-comparison webservice that Consumerist talked about here once (cant remember the name) also said that you need 42 accounts to get an 'A' for the number of accounts.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
August 11, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I'm guessing that the 42 answer is in reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And it's possible that the webservice may have been going with the same thought, though I doubt it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 11, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: Yes, it is in reference to that (and ofcourse i picked up on it). but the webservice was using aggregated results from people, and it was a serious feature, not a joke, so im guessing just coincidence. Their results were probably skewed because of the samples they had.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
August 11, 2009 4:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@howie_in_az: Depends on how many other consumers like you are deadbeats, non-payers, or good customers. It's likely to change from year to year. You don't want to strive for a \"magic number\"; you want to strive to be like the people the credit card companies love, and that changes.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
August 11, 2009 8:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like that No Job, isn't on that list.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
shepd
August 11, 2009 1:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah:

Yes, that is weird, considering it is actually something credit card companies take into account.

My mom couldn't get a credit card for years because she was a stay-at-home mom. This despite my dad having an immaculate credit rating and having held the same job for decades, and our home being owned, not mortgaged.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
August 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah:


Which is fair, because that won't be on a credit report. If you don't have a job, but have a huge trust fund, then you're probably a good credit.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ckaught78
August 11, 2009 10:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

These reasons may not be why you were declined. When a CC company runs a bureau it is returned with the top four risk reasons, regardless of your credit history. You may have perfect credit and will still see these reasons. Banks for soley rely on FICO scores to decide whether or not to give you credit.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
August 12, 2009 10:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ckaught78: This is something a lot of people should be aware of. I was caught off guard when we got a letter listing our risks even though I was a 790 and my was was an 8-something. It would have made the response much less confusing if I had known that was generated regardless of score or credit risk.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
August 11, 2009 11:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can think of at least 36 reason to deny them my business...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mykro
August 11, 2009 11:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HRHKingFridayXX: Is there a way to deny them business.. that would be swell..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
August 11, 2009 12:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mykro: Yes, even when you buy a house, none of this will really matter if you pay your utilities on time and have a 20% down payment (not hard if you live frugally).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
August 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HRHKingFridayXX:

And for places where a 20% down payment on the average home is a full years salary before taxes for the average family, like where I live (Average family income is ~$60k total, average house price is ~$300k)?

How frugally does one need to live to get that downpayment started, and for how many decades?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
August 12, 2009 3:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: dumpster dive, don't breed, don't get sick, 3 FT jobs.

good luck.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
August 11, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Do you really need the 300k home? I live in a major metro area where prices haven't dropped (DC), and can still find a humble house for much less than that. We're putting away 10k out of a 60k income (4 years for 40k down on a 200k house). But hey, if you still want that mcmansion in the hip neighborhood, by all means run up credit card debt to pump up your FICO score.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
August 12, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HRHKingFridayXX:

Anything under $200k and you are looking at homes similar to the horror story I mentioned. That home was listed at $140k before the bubble. Similar quality (ie: Value is in the land) homes are listed at $160 - $180k now.

$300k doesn't get you a McMansion in Kitchener, it gets you 3 to 4 beds in a neighbourhood relatively free of gangs and graffiti artists.

$63k is the average income here. Have some fun with MLS for houses in Kitchener, ON.

Houses that don't need serious work and are in reasonably desirable areas start at $250k here. Houses to the east (Toronto) that don't need serious work start at $600k. Houses to the west that don't need serious work start at $300k (London). Houses to the north include a farm (because it's farmland) and therefore start at $1 million. And to the south (Hamilton) they start at $100k, but you'll need to kick the gang members out first.

If you're moving your family into it, do you really want a home you'll have to raze first?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
August 12, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Have you all forgotten that its still a buyer's market? Even if they start at 250k, I bet you could get it down to 220k. I also think our definitions of \"reasonably desirable\" differ. Oh well, enjoy your credit card debt!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jevia
August 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HRHKingFridayXX: Depending on where one lives, 300k is certainly not a 'mcmansion.' Where I live (suburban PA), 300k buys a 3BR 2BA home with a 1 car garage and a smallish front and back yard. Average salaries probably aren't much above 60,000 either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
August 11, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jevia:


I would /love/ to buy a 3br home for 300K--in my area, that won't get you into a house, any house.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
squinko
August 11, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What does \"derogatory public record or collection filed\" mean? Is that just talking about having an account or bill sent to collections, or would that also include public things like filing for divorce or something?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
FDCPAGuy
August 11, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko:
It means there is a collection or judgment on the report. Various types of judgments include; small claims cases, District court cases, tax liens (Federal, State and County or City), bankruptcies, foreclosures. Divorces are not on there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
August 11, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: It probably doesn't include regular divorce filings. It would be that someone owes a former spouse big time, hasn't paid up,hasn't even worked out a payment plan, and has a court order for collection on that amount.


What it does mean is that someone sued a person in court and won. It could be due to criminal restitution to victims or a civil court case.


Example: my current landlord has a judgement for about $5000 against the stooge couple that previous rented the house I am renting This was because because the couple either trashed and broke house fixtures/walls or didn't take out trash leaving the back yard filled with junk. And owed a couple of months rent on top of it. I would imagine that the couple's credit is pretty trashed due to this - if it wasn't already.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
August 11, 2009 1:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: That's child support, I think. Or anything else that a court orders collected, maybe in some states that includes tickets and settlements.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
August 11, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That does make sense that it's for big things like child support, etc. Although I can see in the future some companies saying, Oh, you got a $10 parking ticket, your APR is now 24.99%!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tinyhands
August 11, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Knowing what affects your credit: Excellent.
Knowing what's on your credit report: Priceless.
Knowing your actual credit score: Useless.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedguru
August 12, 2009 12:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tinyhands: Why do you consider knowing one's credit score useless?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tinyhands
August 12, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@greeneyedguru: In what way does knowing a number that someone else assigned to you affect your behavior? If your number was \"good,\" would you willingly do things that have a negative effect on your credit? If you know what actions affect your credit, and if you know what actions have been reported to the credit agencies on your behalf, you don't need a number. You certainly don't need to PAY someone to tell you a number.

I can sum it up in three rules:
1) Do the things that have a positive effect on your credit.
2) Don't do the things that have a negative effect on your credit.
3) Be aware of (at least annually) what is being reported to the credit agencies.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mewyn dyner
August 12, 2009 12:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

With the revolving credit accounts, how many is too few? I have 2 credit cards I use constantly, but pay off in full all the time. I seem to have good credit, but never checked my \"score\", not needing any significant loans, I never felt the need to.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Sarcasmo48
August 16, 2009 11:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Couple things. The few times I have been denied credit by a company or bank, they told me why. You get a letter saying why you were denied with \"the following reasons listed below\". Dunno if that was just personal experience.

Secondly, two words: Credit. Union. Yes, they looked up my credit score. Got a Visa with a good rate and a car loan the same day. Bye bye bank of america.

Reply
","");