FAQ (FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

In short, to DISPUTE is literally an ARGUMENT AGAINST the TRUTH and VALIDITY OF A CLAIM IN ITS REALITY

Whereas:
M2CA does NOT concern itself with a claim’s REALITY but only it’s REPORTING(s) and PROCESSES of reporting. We do NOT argue that an item is or is not true or correct or valid or anything of the sort, we instead simply REQUEST if the WAY REPORTED and the PROCESS OF REPORTING was and IS COMPLIANT to state and federal standards and laws. And if there is any insufficiencies or inabilities or unwillingness’s to demonstrate the factual certified compliant reporting REGARDLESS OF TRUTH AND VALIDITY of claim(s) we leverage the Metro 2 Five Points of Compliance as well as the MANDATORILY PERFECT and COMPLETE certification of the METRO 2 FORMAT REPORTING.

Even TRUE, VALID claims can be FAULTY in its PROCESS OF REPORTING and as such is DERELICT IN ITS REPORTING. In that tone, just because debt, in reality, fails to be report-able does NOT equate to it as wellbeing uncollectable. Fact is, the requisites for REPORTING an injurious claim versus a consumer is far much stricter than that of simply collecting. Literally, to lawfully collect a claim debt one needs be TRUE and VALID (NOT NECESSARILY VERIFIABLE that is a REPORTING criterion), whereas to lawfully report there MUST BE undoubted evidence of document CERTIFIABLE COMPLIANCE of reporting for claims factually TRUE, CORRECT, COMPLETE, PHYSICALLY VERIFIABLE, VALID and PERFECT in its mandatory METRO 2 FORMAT REPORTING(s). Any claim DEFICIENT of requisites is lawfully UNFIT to report!

THAT IS OUR ANGLE and the KEYNOTE difference between DISPUTING (reality) and M2C Method CHECKS & CHALLENGES (reporting-based).

That is easy, simply read the answer to #1 above, lol. Seriously, the PRIMARY DIFFERENCE is that in order to argue the COMPLIANCE-aspects the claim had to FIRST SURVIVE the requisites of VALIDITY AND TRUTH OF CLAIM (the DISPUTING necessities). Point is, the M2C Method of Compliance-based CHECKS and CHALLENGES goes FURTHER than a DISPUTE of ANY SHORT WOULD because the fact is an item that fails measures of disputing would never survive an M2CA standard, but an item not necessarily COMPLIANTLY REPORTED can in fact be both TRUE and VALID and if so it SURVIVES traditional DISPUTING methodologies! That is to say that NATURALLY the M2C Method CHECKS & CHALLENGES already have a BUILT-IN ‘DISPUTING’ matrix it survived!
Literally, ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FICO is a FAKO score, regardless of where it is derived! Essentially NON-FICO scores are just EDUCATIONAL in nature and purpose whereas typically lenders use one of the many FICO scores.
For one it is a FAKO simply because it is NOT a FICO score. VS3 is a scoring model adopted/created by the actual credit mafia themselves (the main three CRAs that is). In general, MOST available scoring models out there on credit monitoring sites such as credit karma and others use or use a form of VS3, thereby actually making the VS3 the most widely utilized credit report scoring model in use, SHOCKING, huh?

In general, FIVE (5) factors play into the FICO score, or at least that is what the published information would have us believe (I’m very suspicious because I KNOW PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS affect reports and scores although per the five factors suggested it could not be so).

PAYMENT HISTORY is the most IMPORTANT FICO FACTOR weighing in at 35% on average (I will explain that “on average “comment at a later time). UNLIKE Credit Utilization Ratio (aka the AMOUNT OWED versus AMOUNT LIMITS), the PH includes considerations from BOTH REVOLVING and also INSTALLMENT accounts, whereas CU (AO) that accounts for 30% ONLY alleges it considers REVOLVING ACCOUNTS ONLY (but again, I am highly DOUBTFUL this is FULLY TRUEßagain at a later time I will explain this too)

Your CREDIT AGE or AVERAGE AGE OF CREDIT is 3rd most vital factor weighing in at only 15%, THIS IS WHY IT IS NOT ALWAYS “HEALTHY FOR YOUR SCORES” to add NEW CREDIT ACCOUNTS, be it REVOLVING or BE IT INSTALLMENT!

The final two main factors are each just 10% which includes the aforementioned “attempted” NEW CREDIT (the hard inquiries) as well as the BLEND or MIXTURE QUALITY OF YOUR PROFILE.

If you have 20 accounts, each a revolving you will have a substantially low CREDIT MIX score whereas if you had those 20 accounts with say 12 CCs, 3 cars, 2 homes, a student loan, and a bank loan then you have a HEALTHY MIXTURE and likely gained all or most of that 10% for BLEND OF CREDIT!

FCRA stands for Fair Credit Reporting Act This is the HOLY BRAIL of REPORTING REGULATIONS (the RULES the credit mafia plays by) and essentially is the foundation of all things CONSUMER-RIGHTS! The FCRA was first initiated in 1970 and governs the collection of consumer credit information and primarily was established to aid in ensuring fairness, accuracy, and PRIVACY of personal information reported, be it monetary credit items or personal identifier data or public report noting’s!

FTC stands for the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Established at the turn of the 20th century (I believe just before or about the time of Titanic, lol), the FTC’s original and supposed continue primary goals are fairness among commerce entities! Since that time, the US Congress has afforded many authority rights to FTC so to aid it in policing actions that are unfair, anti-competitive, and simply unlawful!

CFPB? Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an actual GOVERNMENT ENTITY that forces the credit mafia to more behave more consistently essentially! The VERY REASON for the CFPB (has a NEW NAME NOW ACTUALLY) was to be the “POINT” of ACCOUNTABILITY for enforcing consumer financial (including credit reporting) laws and standards of applicable practices. One side effect that was envisioned was that the CFPB would give consumers greater “protection” somehow although I am not totally on board with THAT ASSUMPTION!

When buying OUR PRODUCTS, be it a letter generator, a CRM, or just a set of letters or an educational platform what you ARE GETTING is a 100% ETHICAL 100% COMPLIANCE-BASED 100% TESTED structure that has survived the test of TIME and EXPOSURE. Unlike ANY disputing methodology that relies on arguing versus the truth and validity of a claim’s reality, the TACTICS we employ are NOT CONCERNED WITH THE REALITY OF A CLAIM, only the HOW REPORTED, WHEN REPORTED, WHY REPORTED, WHO REPORTED, WHO WAS REPORTED TO, HOW TRANSFER OF DATA OCCURRED, HOW PROCESSING OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS was CONDUCTED, WHAT DOCUMENTATION ACCOMPANIED ANY REPORTING ACT or event and so on.

ALL OF OUR attack systems are PURPOSEFULLY created to retain COMPLIANT BEHAVIOR and STEER you away from fraudulent claims and deceptive behaviors such as claiming NOT MINE when in fact it is!

Well YEAH, no doubt because a LATE PAYMENT is typically the FIRST WARNING SIGN OF POTENTIAL DEFAULT, and as such creditors significantly track your payment behaviors and are keenly aware of your deficient actions that INJURE THEM as creditors.

Over TIME, late payments same as any other ailment lessens in harm or negativity. A set of FIVE LATES 3 years ago LIKELY weighs LESS SCORE-wise than does a SINGLE LATE LAST MONTH, surely less than a 60 or 90 late. In fact, a 90 late is considered a MAJOR DELINQUICIENCY and differentiates itself from being only delinquency to a full-fledge DEROGATORINESS circumstance!

In fact, the PURPOSE of a CREDIT SCORE is to measure the LIKELIHOOD THAT a consumer WILL DEFAULT BY AT LEAST 90 days at least once in the next 24 months, THAT IS IT! It is a PREDICTIVE TOOL same as the tools a weatherman uses to predict rain a week out, lol!

I doubt there are any FACTUAL studies on this but from MY EXPERIENCES any negative event has zero or near zero scoring effect at the 4-year mark (48 months). The INITIAL MAJOR NEGATIVITY is in near full effect the whole of the FIRST YEAR however, with MINOR differences in scoring of a 9 month charge off and a 2 month one, BOTH ARE HORRID score-wise!