vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a ""hard pull"", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something ""in collections"".
"Agree with wrschneider99. Also, since it's a ""credit report"" it helps to have a history of credit. My wife has been in the U.S. for 14 years and now has a higher credit score than me, a U.S. citizen. When we leased a car we put it in her name. When we took out a mortgage it's under both our names."
"It's not just that credit history is local; it's that it's a private business run for profit. The ""big three"" credit bureaus in the US are Experian, Equifax and Transunion.  They collect information on debt usage and abuse from various companies in the US, and charge a fee to provide that information (and their judgement of you) to companies interested in offering you further credit.  But there's nothing stopping a company from collecting international credit histories, or specialized credit histories either (for instance, there's a company called ChexSystems which focuses on retail purchase financing (mostly auto) and checking account abuse, while ignoring other types of lending). That being said, I don't know of any companies which currently collect international credit histories.  Perhaps in Europe, with more nations in close geographic proximity, there would be, but not in North America."
The problem is that the reason you find out may be that you are at the car dealer, picked out a car, and getting ready to sign the loan papers with your supposedly good credit, and you are denied for late payment on loans you didn't know you have.  Or debt collectors  start hounding you.  Or you credit card interest rates go up.  Or you are charged more for your insurance because you are seen as a bad credit risk.  Or you can't rent an apartment.  The list is almost endless. It can takes many months and hours spent on the phone to fix these things.
Auto Insurance score is in no way related to your driving habits, instead it is based on your credit usage.  You are often punished for having more than one or two hard inquires in a year and they also frown upon having many lines of credit even though that helps your credit utilization.
While everything can be fixed in the end, and you can usually get all your money back, recovering from identity theft can take months or years. In the meantime, these are some of the things which you might not be able to do: In addition, you could face the following events: For all that, checking your credit report / score once or twice a year is probably enough.  If you're planning on a major purchase, though, you should get a copy of your full credit report from all three major bureaus (Equifax, Transunion and Experian) a few months ahead of time.  Even if everything on them is kosher, having that information on hand will give you a leg up when you go for financing.
It also reduces risk from the bank's eyes. Believe it or not, they do lose out when people don't pay on their mortgages. Take the big 3 (Wells, Chase and BoA). If they have 50 million mortgages between the 3 of them and 20% of people at one point won't be able to pay their mortgage due to loss of income or other factors, this presents a risk factor. Although interest payments are still good, reducing their principal and interest keeps them tied down for additional (or sometimes shorter) time, but now they are more likely to keep getting those payments. That's why credit cards back in 07 and 08 reduced limits for customers. The risk factor is huge now for these financial institutions. Do your research, sometimes a refi isn't the best option. Sometimes it is.
"The conclusion that ""it's bad to have 0% utilization"" from the data you linked is misleading.  When people have zero history, they also have zero utilization.  The fact that generally people with zero utilization are credit virgins is what drives that average score.  Obviously, people with zero, or limited, history will have significantly lower credit scores than folks with some utilization and a lot of history. In response to the couple comments regarding the dip on attaining 0% utilization.  The data shows a 67 point drop in average score from 0% to 1%-10%.  The stark deviation in average score between those two groups is not the result of a couple point change because of zero utilization."
No. Getting more credit lowers your credit utilization ratio (if you don't use it), which raises your credit rating, this can also be done by asking for a higher limit on your existing credit card. Also, there is a chance that the company you got your first card from won't pull your credit a second time when they go to the underwriter. As any extensions of credit lower your credit score, although the credit utilization ratio is weighted more heavily.
Yeah, I think this is true, but my credit scores are 810+ and I have a similar amount of liquidity and I think I would still have a tough time getting what I wanted in this market due to the cash buyers. People with outstanding credit are losing to cash.
Yes, they do. Generally though you'll only see it on one or two reports. With regards to the impact on your credit score.  Hard inquiries only stay on your credit for 2 years, after that they fall off.  For most credit scores (specifically FICO) they only have an impact for 1 year after their date.  If you have a few in the same 30 day period FICO will lump these into 1 pull to allow you to shop around for credit/loans.  They also have a low to medium impact on your score.
People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.
"That's definitely a good point; thanks for noting that. Leverage was definitely an issue.  Re: the ratings agencies, I just wanted to clarify that I was talking about something a bit different than the problem of ""ratings shopping"" (I assume this is what you meant what you mentioned the ratings agencies ""capitulating"").   ""Ratings shopping"" is essentially the tendency for a ""race to the bottom"" in ratings when banks pay for ratings. That has always been an issue for the ratings agencies since the 1970s (I think?) when they started having the rated entities pay for their ratings.   What I was talking about is more unique to the structured products industry in the mid-2000s -- i.e. how the ratings agencies gave banks an opportunity for essentially risk-less profit by merely repackaging MBSs into CDOs. So banks would buy up MBSs, repackage them into CDOs, sell shares of the CDOs to investors, and then hedge all of the residual risk away by writing a CDS contract with a monoline insurer like AIG. This has more to do with the relationship *between* ratings for different products, and not the absolute ""level"" of the ratings for any given product.  Sorry if that sounds nit-picky, but I think it's an extremely important detail that is generally lost upon -- as you pointed out -- economists who are pushing the ""ratings shopping"" theory. I would guess this is because moral hazard is a story they are already familiar with."
So nothing preventing false ratings besides additional scrutiny from the market/investors, but there are some newer controls in place to prevent institutions from using them. Under the DFA banks can no longer solely rely on credit ratings as due diligence to buy a financial instrument, so that's a plus. The intent being that if financial institutions do their own leg work then *maybe* they'll figure out that a certain CDO is garbage or not.  Edit: lead in
It is not what I think that matters it is what a statistically significant number of people at any one time think.  Credit scores will be obsolete the moment enough people stop paying attention to them regardless of what I may think.  I don't spend any real time with outrage as it inhibits problem solving.  Laws (and regulations) often follow the collective will more than they advance or shape it.  Governments often only react when they have no other choice politically.  But most government regulations wind up being like Tipper Gore telling Frank Zappa to tone it down and he telling her to go fuck off.
Closing the card will be fine. The consequences are related to your available credit and actual/potential utilization. If you have less total credit, any credit you actually use will be a greater percentage of your total credit, manipulating your score downwards more greatly. The next consequence will be related to the age of your credit history, which is an average of your credit lines. This seems negligible and also beneficial for you, since your credit history is so young to begin with.
Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: ""Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!"""
As far as I understand, equifax collects data about individuals and scores their credit worthiness. The ceo did Jack shit about keeping all that private data safe, so they got hacked and all that data is now in someone else's hands. The possible implications? Large scale identify fraud of anyone whose details got stolen, since it encompasses everything  that is needed for that. And that is besides the privacy violation.
Consider that however high your credit score gets, there is a 'worst piece of it'. The automated software will always report your 'weakest' two points, even if they are already at the top 0.0001% of everyone; that's just how it is coded.
Check out /r/personalfinance for more detailed advice. Not sure your question.  Yes, cancelling it will cause it to disappear from your credit report.  Apply for your own card right now (a free rewards one ideally) if your credit it good enough and you have a job.  Never pay interest and keep that card and your credit will naturally head to 720+ with no negative marks over time.
According to Money Girl, home insurance premiums are higher if you have a poor credit score. You might self-insure though if you are wealthy.
Banks calculate the total they can present to you chiefly on your net review earnings. They get into explanation their preceding experience and your present track record which would point to whether you have taken any other loan or you have had a awful credit history and effects like your investments history and your existing investments before making a choice as to how much they will lend to you.
"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no ""quick fix"" to raise your credit score in a short period.  Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car.  Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary)  Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan."
In a nutshell, not really.  That's the risk you take when you co-sign for someone.  The lender only made the loan because of the strength of your brother's credit, not your mother's, so his reputation (in the form of his credit rating) is going to take the hit because of his mother's behaviors. The one thing he can do is this:  The credit bureaus allow you to add a comment or explanation to your credit file which may be helpful, provided potential creditors read it, which is never a guarantee.  It's worth trying though, so suggest to him to look into it. Here's a link for him/you/anyone to look at that can help explain how this works and what effects it can have: Adding a comment to your credit file for negative items I hope this helps. Good luck!
"There's a difference between missing a payment and ""carrying a balance"" (making an on-time payments that are less than the full balance due). I have heard mortgage brokers claim that, if you have no other credit history, carrying a small balance here and there on a credit card may improve your score.  (""Small"" is in relation to your available credit and your ability to pay it off.)  But actually missing a payment will probably hurt your score. Example: You have a card with a credit limit of $1000.  In July you charge $300 worth of stuff.  You get the next statement and it shows the balance due of $300 and a minimum payment of $100. If you pay the entire $300 balance in that cycle, most cards won't charge you any interest.  You are not carrying a balance, so the credit scores may not reflect that you actually took a $300 loan and paid it off. If you instead pay $200, you'll be in good standing (because $200 is greater than the minimum payment).  But you'll be carrying a $100 balance into the next statement cycle.  Plus interest will accrue on that $100.  If you do this regularly, your credit score will probably take into account that you've taken a small loan and made the payments.  For those with no other credit history, this may be an appropriate way to increase your credit score.  (But you're paying interest, so it's not free.)  And if the average balance you carry is considered high relative to your ability to pay or to the total credit available to you, then this could adversely affect your score (or, at least, the amount of credit another provider is willing to extend to you). If you instead actually miss a payment, or make a payment that's less than the minimum payment, that will almost certainly hurt your credit score.  It will also incur penalties as well as interest.  You want to avoid that whenever possible. My guess is that, in the game of telephone from the banker to you, the ""carrying a balance"" was misinterpreted as ""missing a payment."""
Say there are 5 people took loan of $100000 each. Those 5 people work in different jobs and have different capacity to payoff loan. Someone earning $40000 a year has higher risk to default on their payment then someone making $250000 a year.   As Bank wants to sell this CDO to investor but how would investor know what the risk factor for this CDO is. This is where rating agency comes in picture. They apparently look at the underlying asset and assign rating to this CDO say AAA, B, AA etc which give investor idea of underlying risk.   Problem here is rating agency gets paid by Bank to rate their CDO. So if a rating agency starts rating their CDO to higher risk Bank will go to next agency round the corner to get better rating and agency will lose commission. You can see the problem here.   Now if people start struggling to pay loan, bank will not get money and it cannot pay CDO holders. If house that was worth $100000 when CDO was created is devalued to say $50000 today the underlying asset is not worth as much when CDO was sold. That is what happened when market crashed in 2008 and GFC hit.
While you're asking about a particular bank, I'll give my opinion of this in general.  I think a $12,000 household income is pretty low to be given credit. The risk to the bank is certainly higher than if the income were at that $35,000 level. They can use this to differentiate what they offer for perks, and if they ever collateralize the debt of these cards, it's a clearly defined demographic.
It sounds like your father got a loan and you are making the payments.  If your name and SSN are not on the loan then you are not getting credit for making the payments your father is.  So it will not affect your credit.  If you are on the loan as a secondary borrower it will affect your credit but not substantially on the positive but could affect it substantially on the negative side. Since your father is named as the primary borrower you will probably need to talk with him about it first.  If this is a mistake the 2 of you will need to work together with the bank to get it corrected.  Since your father is currently listed first the bank is probably going to be unable(even if they are willing) to make a change to the loan now with out his explicit permission. In addition if the loan is in your fathers name, if it is a vehicle loan, then the car is most likely in your fathers name as well.  Most states require that the primary signatory on a vehicle loan also be the primary owner on the title to the vehicle.  If your fathers name is the primary name on the title then you would have to retitle the car to refinance in your name.
"According to an article on Bankrate.com from 2011, yes, it can hurt your credit: With individual liability accounts, the employee holds all responsibility for the charges, even if the company pays the issuer directly. Joint liability means the company and employee share the responsibility for payments, says Mahendra Gupta, author of the RPMG survey. In both cases, if the card isn't paid and the account becomes delinquent, it will pop up on the employee's credit report and dent his or her credit score, says Barry Paperno, consumer affairs manager at myFICO.com. It doesn't matter if the company was supposed to make the payment; the repercussions fall on the employee. ""It will impact your score no differently than if you were late on one of your own accounts,"" Paperno says. Usually, with corporate credit cards, the employee is liable along with the employer for charges on the card.  The intent is to provide the employee with an incentive not to misuse the card.  However, this can be a problem if your company is late in paying bills. In the distant past, I had a corporate credit card.  I was not supposed to have to pay the bill, but I did receive a bill in the mail every month.  And occasionally, the payment was late.  In my case, these late payments never showed up on my credit report.  I can't remember now whether or not this card was reported on my credit report at all.  And I remember being told when I got the card that I was jointly responsible for the card with the company. However, your experience may be different.  Do the on-time payments show up on your credit report?  If so, that may be an indication that a late payment might appear."
Credit risk and insurance risk are highly correlated for a single legal party.  Trouble with one could indicate trouble with another. Any increase in credit risk such as new borrowing will be perceived to be an increased likelihood of insurance risk, manifested as a fraudulent or subconsciously induced claim.  Any claim of insurance will be perceived to be an increased likelihood of default, manifested as a default, voluntary or not. To a creditor/insurer, only the law applies; therefore, private arrangements between the borrower/insured and third parties do not factor because the creditor/insurer has no hope of recourse against such third parties in most places around the world. Regardless of whether there is a price ceiling on compensation for damages to assets, limiting an insurers costs, if a risk is realized then it can be presumed through sequential sampling as well as other reliable statistical techniques that future risk has risen.  The aforementioned risk dominoes subsequently fall. Generally speaking, the lower one's financial variance, the lower the financial costs.  In other words, uncertainty can be mostly quantified with variance and other mathematical moments as well.  Any uncertainty is a cost to a producer thus a cost to the consumer.  A consumer who is perfectly predictable with good outcomes will pay much lower costs on average than not, so one who keeps a tight financial ship, not exposing oneself to financial risks and better yet not realizing financial risks, will see less financial variance, thus will enjoy lower costs to financing, which includes insuring.