A while ago I posted in the bar asking for advise for a college buddy who was in deep revolving unsecured debt he could not service. My inquiry was about legitimate debt consolidation services. After finding what appeared to be best in breed, it became clear to him what most already knew, he would have to bite the bullet and openly discuss BK with his wife who had limited knowledge of the debt severity. Anyway, having come around to the reality that BK was the best move he asked me to pull his credit so he could consult with a BK attorney. The interesting thing was that even though he hadn't paid any credit cards in 60-90 days they are all reporting "as agreed" They have cut the lines to the outstanding balance but will not report a 30 day late. I can only assume that the banks C,BAC,Cap1,Wach) are doing this in the hope that a different bag holder will bail them out with either a balance transfer or a cashout refi. I suppose if I was the lender I would do the same thing and hope that a greater fool than I existed. Interesting stuff.

thanks - I hope others who are similarly situated can verify. I wonder whether mortgage holders are doing some of that?

Greater fool wanted:

Citigroup markets $1.5 bln credit card securitzation
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/ak....

That is interesting Pauper. Very interesting. Surely the reporting agencies must be aware of a discrepancy? They are putting their credibility on the line (if this is accurate).

Hey Karl, you see this?

Quote:

I can only assume that the banks C,BAC,Cap1,Wach) are doing this in the hope that a different bag holder will bail them out with either a balance transfer or a cashout refi.

I believe this too.

Interesting..... now that's a new twist on things...

Tickered.

hahahaha..

sneaky bastards..

well easy way around that is don't allow any balance transfers to your institution that are maxed out balances.

you know.. now that i really think about it..

that's like selling someone a bag of **** and tell them it's diamonds.

is it your fault you didn't look in the bag before they took your money and left..

or is that fraud?

I doubt it's fraud... there is no DUTY to report to the credit agencies.

The problem is that they're reporting a lie. Is there a tort in that? ****-if-I-know - the bureau is probably clear unless they know (which they wouldn't since they never see the payment flow) but the issuers.... no idea.

what the ****?
Why should anyone bother paying their cc then?

"what the ****?
Why should anyone bother paying their cc then?"

there ya go..

everyone go get a Citi card and charge it to the max and don't pay. lol

Wow, I guess the real fool here is me. Just wrote Chase a $4,000 check to retire what was left of my credit card debt.

Oh well, that leaves me a nine grand line of credit to max out and bail on when my unemployment benefits run out.

Karl, I think there is a duty to accurately report. I'm fairly certain that when a business signs up with the reporting agencies that they sign a contract & part of that concerns accurate reporting. Its been a long time since I've been in the business & that wasn't my area (I was a collector), but seem to recall discussions of accuracy.

If there is a discrepancy, the credit bureaus should be aware of it. They are always running programs to look for trends or patterns. You'd think they'd notice if one source is reporting 10% defaults or delinquencies and the banks are only reporting 2% defaults (or whatever the number is).

Quote:

Karl, I think there is a duty to accurately report. I'm fairly certain that when a business signs up with the reporting agencies that they sign a contract & part of that concerns accurate reporting. Its been a long time since I've been in the business & that wasn't my area (I was a collector), but seem to recall discussions of accuracy.

Well I'm getting multiple reports from people who claim to either work for or have worked for these bureaus who say that people pop up "suddenly" 90 late or 120 late all the time - the assumption is that the banks ignore this on purpose so they can claim their securitized paper is being sold "good".

wouldn't that mean it could be as long as 6-10 months before you a card that was obviously going to default is known as a default?

so people who were defaulting in April might just be hitting something now as an actual default?

Uh huh CJ..... which in turn means that all the master securitization numbers we've been getting are absolute bull**** and are ~4-6 months behind reality!

Who in the hell buys all this snotty tissue paper?

What have we said about wrong assumptions? We were still looking through rose colored glasses. They just weren't tinted quite as dark as others. It never had occured to me that there might be dishonor among thieves when reporting cc lates. Duh. Should have seen that one coming. I feel so violated. LOL Actually nothing surprizes me any more. So damn jaded.

Indeed, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that reported information MUST be accurate and complete. OTOH, no one is ever required by law to report anything. Citi is breaking the law, though for once it is in favor of the debtor (for now). I want to see more reports of ppl being reported as "Current- Pays as Agreed" while actually being 60-90days behind before I jump to conclusions. This person may be an isolated example.

Gen - I beg to differ with you on the There is no duty line. I will check on it but it is my understanding that when you sign up with the bureaus you agree to report accurately credit information. I don't think there is a duty to report but I think there is a duty if you do report to report accurately. I would say that this does represent fraud on their part or at least a violation of The Fair Credit Reporting Act.

per wiki - as it is always correct

Quote:

Lenders have an important role to play in ensuring credit reports are accurate:[4]

1.They must provide complete and accurate information to the credit reporting agencies.
2.The duty to investigate disputed information from consumers falls on them, and they must correct an error, or explain why the credit report is correct within 30 days of receipt of notice of a dispute.
3.They must inform consumers about negative information which has been or is about to be placed on a consumer's credit report within 30 days.

also

Quote:

Civil liability for willful or negligent violations of the FCRA
Under § 616 of the Act, (15 U.S.C. § 1681n), a consumer may recover either actual damages or a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $1000 plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs for willful noncompliance with the Act. Under § 617 of the Act, (15 U.S.C. § 1681o), recovery for a negligent violation is of actual damages, plus attorney's fees. Under § 618, a consumer may file suit in state or federal court to enforce the Act, and the statute of limitations is the earlier of 2 years from discovery and 5 years from the violation. (15 U.S.C. § 1681p.)

I wonder if failure to report could be a willful noncompliance and expose them to damages. What if a government program was only available to those delinquent on their bills? Interesting conundrum here. Could their failure to report bad information bite them in the ass.

Willful non-compliance is considered repeated violations after being notified of the problem, such as repeated disputes with the credit bureaus that the creditor verifies as accurate even when they know it is not. In other words, violations made in malice against the consumer, not "bona fide error". Negligent non-compliance has a lower standard of proof and generally covers verifying reported info as accurate even if it is not. No punitive damages are awarded for negligent violation, only statutory damages of $1000 per violation. The catch to the FCRA is you MUST dispute the inaccurate info through the credit bureaus FIRST. That is what triggers liability for the reporter. The presence of inaccurate info alone does not trigger liability. The reporter MUST be given the opportunity to correct the inaccurate info before any liability is triggered. It is what the reporter does after given the opportunity to correct it that matters.

I doubt there's ever been a lawsuit brought for reporting good info inaccurately though so surely no case law precedent for such a issue.

Quote:

...I can only assume that the banks C,BAC,Cap1,Wach) are doing this in the hope that a different bag holder will bail them out with either a balance transfer or a cashout refi.

If true, those credit card offers that make up 15% of the USPS's traffic should dry up promptly....

Definitely sounds like the "financial perfect crime" -- who's going to complain to a credit bureau that their credit report leaves out a few late payments?

some reporting systems are designed to update after activity. So if you do not make a payment, it does not update. These systems usually have reset features every XX days for reporting current status without any further payment activity. If I had to take a guess, many of those are set at 90 days.