don’t know about you, but I’m already sick of Susan Boyle from Britain’s Got Talent. And I don’t even live in Britain! I’ve just reached my Boyling point with her.
Well, it does seem now that the population of Britain agrees with me, at least, because U.K. viewers’ fickle attention has already turned first to younger and cuter 12-year-old Britain’s Got Talent hopeful Shaheen Jafargholi (see more on him here), and then, as of last night, to the even younger and cuter 10-year-old singing ballerina, Hollie Steel.
Hollie’s performance on Britain’s runaway-hit talent show is the latest Interweb sensation after airing on U.K. television yesterday, and along with the obvious ongoing decrease in age and increase in adorableness among BGT contestants, I notice another pattern here.
See, each of the standout contestants on Britain’s Got Talent at first fake out the judges–Susan by making them think she’s some socially awkward wannabe William Hung with that “never been kissed” comment; Shaheen by initially going with the wrong song before being ordered by Simon Cowell to sing a more suitable Jackson 5 tune instead; Hollie by executing some dubious beginner-ballet-class recital moves.
But then these contestants open their mouths and sing, sing, SING…and the judges put on Emmy-worthy acting performances (or whatever the equivalent of the Emmy is over in the U.K.), bugging their eyes out, dropping their jaws to the floor, and pretending that they had no idea that the Brit before them actually had talent until this very televised moment. Puh-leeze.
Anyway, whether or not this has all been staged, it’s a classic reality-TV tactic that worked winningly for Susan and Shaheen, and now those poor contestants have been upstaged by Lancashire tutu-tot Hollie, for whom this fakeout formula has possibly been most successful so far.
“We have seen a lot of children on our show over the past three series and I have never heard any of them sing as well as you do,” raved judge Piers Morgan last night. (Sorry, Shaheen!)
But of course, it’s only a matter of time before Hollie Steel is upstaged as well. So check out her BGT audition below, prepare for her to reach a positively Octo-Mom-esque level of international media saturation in the next week…and then steel yourself for next week, when someone even cuter and younger than Hollie (a particularly charismatic zygote, maybe?) comes around to “shock” Simon and Piers and steal the Britain’s Got Talent spotlight once again
Archive for June 8th, 2009
Hello, readers…I can’t believe I’m actually typing these words–in capslock format, yet–but here goes…
KRIS ALLEN IS THE NEW AMERICAN IDOL.
Now, my regular readers know I am extremely crushed–CRUSHED!–by this news. I might have been rooting for Bo Bice in season 4 and Blake Lewis in season 6, but their respective defeats were much easier for me to take (and much more expected) than this shocking setback.
Adam Lambert was my unabashed early favorite the instant I saw a viral video of him glamming and hamming it up in a Hollywood rock band wearing vaccum-packed pleather pants and some sort of bizarre man-corset. Back then, I jadedly assumed he wouldn’t even make the top 13, because his theatrical antics–along with those much-discussed Interweb JPEGs of him floating around–would likely alienate much of America. But soon it seemed like none of that “scandalous” stuff mattered much to the viewing public, and Adam subsequently kept getting voted through based on his TALENT.
I started to believe that there was a subtle cultural shift going on in this country. I mean, if a black, Democratic president could be elected in 2008, then surely a black-nail-polished, androgynous Idol could win in 2009, right? Yes he could!
Well, that did not happen. In perhaps the biggest upset in AmIdol history, the competition’s darkest dark horse, the little contestant that could, the tortoise to Adam’s hare–Kris Allen–took home the Idol title tonight.
But you know, maybe it wasn’t such an “upset” after all. Maybe it was foolish of me to think that a copiously mascara’d, leather-sheathed, rock-operatic free spirit from Southern California could actually beat out a clean-cut, happily married church worship leader from Arkansas who kind of looks like Joey from Friends.
Then again…maybe Adam’s defeat had NOTHING to do with any sort of liberal/conservative, guyliner/guy-next-door cultural divide after all. Maybe it was just all the over-the-top weekly hype surrounding Adam that created an unfortunate but inevitable backlash–especially the judges’ blatant favoritism, which even I will admit was a bit much and would have bothered me a lot if I hadn’t so wholeheartedly agreed with the judges or personally found Adam so uniquely deserving of such fawning. But perhaps Lambertmania turned off a lot of other voters, or made voters assume that Adam didn’t “need” this victory as much as underdog Kris did.
Whatever the reason, I don’t want Allen fans to think I have anything against Kris. I believe Kris is talented and authentic, and I’m glad he made it to the finale instead of any number of other contestants (like Danny Gokey, Lil Rounds, Scott MacIntyre, Anoop Desai–but NOT Allison Iraheta, whom I adored). I think Kris was a worthy opponent for Adam. I just don’t think he deserved to WIN.
I honestly think America (or, more specifically, America’s Danny Gokey fans, who possibly defected to Kris’s side after Gokey left and effectively bridged that million-vote gap between Adam and Kris) got it very wrong here.
I will just take solace in the fact that a) Adam Lambert will get a record deal anyway; b) not winning may allow Adam to have more creative control over his debut album, and thus he’ll release more genuinely freak-flag-flying material; c) Adam won’t have to release that insipid “No Boundaries” as his first single; and d) Adam will probably outsell Kris in the long run.
Feel free to post your comments about the season 8 winner now, and let me know if you think Adam was robbed or if the right singer prevailed tonight.
Check out the fashion hits and misses of the night here.
Aaaaand we’re back for another country-soaked weekend in Sin City, folks. Las Vegas has the annual distinction of hosting the Academy of Country Music Awards for quite a few years running–a more peanut-butter-and-jelly combo than one might think. The best aspect of the country genre is its ability to be simulaneously down-to-earth yet covered in stardust, and what city does that better than you-know-where? Besides, well, Nashville of course.
To that end, here’s our annual “who won vs. who shoulda won” rundown. Quick aside: Wherefore art thou, Tim McGraw? But anyway, let’s get on with the nuts and bolts.
ENTERTAINER OF THE YEAR:
Carrie Underwood deserved the win, if only for the massive secrecy surrounding her dress and all that. (Just kidding. She always looks great, no matter what she wears, so who cares?) No, really–in all seriousness, it’s kind of nice to see someone break Kenny Chesney’s winning streak, and a gal at that. Underwood’s ability to cross-pollinate the pop genre on a real, adult level is refreshing, and deserving of an epic award.
TOP MALE VOCALIST:
The usual suspects. Kenny again (mildly low-pro in the past 12 months), George Strait doing his best thing (i.e., keeping on keeping on), Toby Keith god lovin’ her. Keith Urban pulled a fair advantage this year, what with his high-profile dad status of one of the cuter babies of last year, plus excellent buildup to his new 2009 record. In the end, however, Brad Paisley and his smoking guitar work took the award.
TOP FEMALE VOCALIST:
All about the Carrie this year, despite formidable opposition by the other crossover chickie (Taylor Swift), Ms. Saucy (Miranda Lambert), breakout hitmaker Heidi Newfield, and critical pick Lee Ann Womack. My gosh–I just realized all these women are very, very blond. What does this mean, subliminally? Anyway, a fair win for Carrie, as she’s reaching the largest mature audience out there.
TOP VOCAL GROUP:
It’s not really fair to pit anyone against Rascal Flatts–even if we are talking upstart talents such as Lady Antebellum and the Lost Trailers, who have been marinating in buzz long and hard enough to have lost feeling in their toes at this point. Or Little Big Town, ditto, not quite as on the crescendo. However, the Flatts are one of those acts that really should be in Entertainer of the Year status and keep getting bumped into group category wins–for about ten zillion wins straight. Which makes it a little hard on those who compete against them. But, as it were. (BTW–Jay DeMarcus: “Now I know how Brooks & Dunn feel”–ha ha ha ha! LOL! That was good.)
TOP VOCAL DUO:
Sugarland can’t quit. Of late, they’re not only scaring the likes of Montgomery Gentry, they’ve been knocking down the formidable Brooks & Dunn door. Sure would be nice to see our fave raunchy pals Big & Rich win (Taxman! John Rich! Yeah!), and it’s fun to see “Cheater, Cheater” Joey + Rory nominated as well. But hey, can’t deny that Jennifer Nettles continues to be skinny, sexy, and damn good video/audio.
TOP NEW ARTIST:
Zac Brown Band put up a hell of a fight. Dang, “Chicken Fried” really held on there for months, didn’t it? And Jake Owen made some impressive chart moves as well. However, I can anecdotally record that my 11-year-old niece and her friends have a “We Heart Julianne” club in which they collect every scrap of evidence that Ms. Hough lives and breathes. Plus, she’s a good time. Sunshine, good looks, dancing with the stars–a very nice package indeed. No hard feelings on this win whatsoever.
TOP NEW MALE ARTIST
Jake Owen took this one, which is a bit of a surprise given the Grammy attention paid toward Jamey Johnson. Well, good for Jake. He’s been deserving of this sort of attention for a couple years now.
TOP NEW FEMALE ARTIST
Julianne Hough again, but she wasn’t up against formidable competition. No offense, Ashton Shepard and Sarah Buxton. There just wasn’t a chance.
TOP NEW VOCAL GROUP
Eli Young Band and the Lost Trailers both were nice and buzzy, but again–not really formidable competition in the face of the brute damn force of Ze Zac Brown Band. Not much to comment on except, “Easy win.”
SINGLE OF THE YEAR
Okay, now we can get back to comparing some close calls. Jamey Johnson was the star Grammy nom boy and all that, and “In Color” is a great tune. Competing against stalwarts Brad Paisley and Trace Adkins is some tough row to hoe, though. Not sure if Miranda Lambert and HeidI Newfield are up to the plate in this category although both singles did smoke and steam. If pressed, we would have guessed Brad would have taken the honor, but it was nice to be surprised and have Trace pull through.
ALBUM OF THE YEAR
Taylor Swift. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. It was. Just shut up and admit it.
SONG OF THE YEAR
Jamey Johnson. He had to win something–all that hype couldn’t be for nothing, right? Nah, just jesting–good tune. Interesting that this category was almost identical to single of the year, no?
VIDEO OF THE YEAR
We had some decent contenders here, with the best probably being Carrie or Taylor running around in fancy dresses looking aching and longing. In the end, though, can you really beat a cute as hell video featuring ANDY GRIFFITH? It would be like beating…America. Good win, Brad. Good work.
VOCAL EVENT OF THE YEAR
Aw. Come on. Brad Paisley plus Keith Urban? You might as well just hang it up and go home.
Until next year, podners. Or, well, until later this year anyway, when we recap the CMA awards. Stay Country!
Scanning the blogs and beats following the Lakers’ 101-96 win over the Magic in Game 2 of the NBA Finals …
George Diaz, Orlando Sentinel: “After Sunday’s loss, the body language didn’t look so good. Howard was slouched on his chair, arms crossed, staring at nothing in particular. Athletes get paid a ton of money to do what they do, but they are human. Think of how hard it is for anyone to come back to work the next day after botching a big project. You don’t want to look your boss in the eye. You don’t want to look at your co-workers, either. You want to crawl and hide. The Magic don’t have that option. They will be back in Orlando for three games, all before sellout crowds. All before people who experienced the heartbreak with them, from home, from restaurants, from bars. Their hearts are broken today, too. It is the nature of sports. [...] Is there one more run left? Orlando will embrace its team Tuesday night, willing to forgive and forget. Amnesia, it seems, isn’t such a bad thing right now.”
Mark Heisler, Los Angeles Times: “Lakers talk the talk, and walk the walk — well, at least some of the time — as they did just often enough to edge the Orlando Magic, 101-96, in overtime Sunday night to take a 2-0 lead in the NBA Finals. To Orlando’s credit, it stopped being all about the Lakers, whose game dropped off from their monster Game 1, while the Magic’s came up so far, they almost passed them. For a moment at the end of regulation, it looked as if it was about to be a 1-1 series, as Hedo Turkoglu’s(notes) inbounds lob sailed over Kobe Bryant(notes) to Courtney Lee(notes), going in for the game-winning layup. Fortunately for the Lakers, tragically for the Magic, Lee had to reach back, and adjust, and, as Chick Hearn used to say … HEARTBR-R-R-R-REAK! If Lee had made it, it would have been one of the great coaching moves in Finals history, so maybe Jackson’s 9-0 lead in titles over Orlando’s Stan Van Gundy isn’t that important.”
Third Quarter Collapse: “It seems weird to say that when the Magic’s two forwards combine for 56 points on 54.5% (eFG), but it’s true. — Los Angeles knows Orlando’s offensive tendencies. It knows that Dwight Howard(notes) prefers to go right in the low post, it knows that Howard frequently brings the ball low enough to get stolen, and it knows that J.J. Redick(notes) is not looking for his shot at all. Howard committed 7 turnovers tonight, and to be precise, we should note that not all of them were ballhandling turnovers. And J.J. only coughed it up once, but that’s deceptive, because it doesn’t indicate the degree to which the Lakers were able to arrange their defense so as to cut off the passing lanes when he drove to the basket. He would have had a few layup chances had he kept driving, and looking to shoot, tonight.”
The Baseline: “… the most important aspect of the Lakers’ defense is the pressure they’ve put on Orlando’s guards, making it impossible for the Magic to get into fast-break situations. Orlando posted a measly two fast-break points in Game 2 (which is two more than they had in Game 1). For much of the second half, Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy — who seemed to have an overabundance of point guards when Jameer Nelson(notes) returned — seemed to utterly lose faith in his entire point-guard crew. Instead of agonizing over whether to use Nelson or Rafer Alston(notes), Van Gundy essentially said the heck with both of them and put in J.J. Redick. If you’re not going to have fast breaks, you might as well have shooters.”
Forum Blue and Gold: “The words written on the Lakers locker room white board: 2 Mo’. They are going about their business and saying all the right things. As a fan, I am smiling a little more now. Despite how close Game 2 was, I feel more confident after that game than I did before it started, and not just because of the 2-0 series lead. Or because the Lakers won a game playing ugly. Or because a bunch of people in the media are writing tonight “hey, maybe that Pau Gasol(notes) guy isn’t soft.” It’s because some fundamental things that make Orlando go have not worked for two games in a row …”
But The Game Is On: “[Gasol] is doing it in all facets of the game right now. Defensively, he is pretty much making Dwight Howard a non-factor, only allowing him to score from the free throw line. Offensively, he is making Dwight work on the defensive end and using his height advantage over Rashard Lewis(notes) when he guards him. Pau finished with 24 points on 7-of-14 shooting, 10 rebounds, three assists, two steals and a block. If he brings his jump shot to Orlando and continues to make Howard work on offense and on defense, ending this series in Florida is possible.”
The Puns Are Starting To Bore Me: “In a game where the Magic were very sloppy with the ball and the guards were nothing short of horrendous on the offensive end of the floor the Magic got the opportunity that all of their opponents have had this postseason. They had the ball in their hands with a chance to win the game.”
Britt Robson: “This much we do know: Courtney Lee can’t guard Kobe Bryant. Hedo Turkoglu looks like he can do it for some stretches. Rafer Alston likewise looks like a bad matchup in this series unless he can figure out how to beat the Lakers’ bigs back in transition — or determines he’s tough enough to stop Fisher off the dribble. Sticking with Lee and Alston as your starting backcourt is not a recipe for surmounting a 2-0 deficit against the Lakers. Nor is riding Jameer Nelson at the expense of Anthony Johnson(notes).”
TrueHoop: “The Magic’s stacked, versatile roster has been a blessing for Van Gundy — but two games into the Finals, it’s proving to be a curse. 101 minutes into the series, Van Gundy has yet to settle on any semblance of a rotation, and his substitution patterns have been wildly unpredictable. While Phil Jackson has established a coherent rotation —complicated only by foul trouble — the Orlando flow chart of substitutions looks like an unwinnable game of Tetris. ‘I’m not sure I got another lineup to throw out there that you haven’t seen,’ Van Gundy said. ‘I don’t have another one now. We played with no point guard, we played conventionally, we had Rashard at the three, we played Hedo at the one, two and three. We played Rashard at the three and four. We played big, we played with no point guard. What do they say, just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hope something sticks?’”
Lakers Blog: “The word ‘experience’ gets tossed around a lot in June. Tonight, we got a feel for why. LA’s veteran core was easily the biggest factor in the win, and once again showed that the Lakers are far more than a one-man show. Kobe Bryant was good but not great, at least by his MVP standards, particularly when it came to taking care of the ball. Seven TOs isn’t exactly typical. ‘I didn’t read coverages as well as I did (in Game 1) and we still managed to win the game. It’s on me to make those adjustments, (to) make those reads,’ Bryant said. Granted, it wasn’t all locusts and plague for 24. 29 points on 10-22 from the floor, juiced by 8-10 from the line. The giveaways were mitigated by eight dimes, including a killer dish to Pau Gasol late in the OT, setting the big Spaniard up for a critical three-point play. The Magic made it clear they weren’t going to abide by a constant stream of mid-range jumpers coming off the screen, as was the case Thursday night. They jammed Kobe hard, denied the ball, and generally tried to make his life tough. As the game went on the Lakers more successfully created space for Kobe, moving him off the ball and letting him receive the ball on the move from the weak side, but on this night he clearly needed the rest of the gang, and the rest of the gang obliged.”
Talk Hoops: “You can’t be as sloppy with the basketball like Orlando was Sunday night and expect to pull out wins in the NBA Finals. The Magic committed 20 turnovers as a team in this ball game and it resulted in 28 points for the Lakers. Compare that to the 12 turnovers and 11 points off of turnovers that went against the Lakers and it’s a significant disadvantage for the Lakers. It was the result of the Lakers defensive philosophy of when someone makes a move towards the middle of the paint, help from perimeter quickly strikes down against the offensive player and swipes at the ball. The Lakers are really efficient at creating turnovers off these quick double teams and they did a great job of doing this, in particular, against Dwight Howard.”
Dime: “One exchange summed up Andrew Bynum’s(notes) postseason so far: When Bynum picked up his fourth foul early in the third quarter and had to sit, Jeff Van Gundy wondered out loud whether that was actually a good thing for the Magic or a bad thing. Mark Jackson seemed to think it was in Orlando’s best interest to keep Bynum on the court …”
Basketball-Reference Blog: “Needless to say, going down 2-0 is devastating to the Magic’s chances. If we use the point differential-based model we employed before the series began, Orlando now has just an 11.6% probability of winning the championship …”
Remember the good old days, way back in 2006, when the streets were paved with credit-gold as far as the eye could see and credit cards rained from the sky? Even the credit-destitute were treated like kings by the credit card companies and courted with lavish offers of unlimited credit.
Here in the future, the world has changed. Banks claim they want to lend money, but really they’d prefer to buy other banks with government money.
Credit issuers aren’t sure they want to lend money to people who need to borrow it, a situation somewhat analogous to the Groucho Marx axiom, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
And woe betide those who ask for loans with glaring blemishes on their credit reports. An unpaid collection is apt to be regarded like a cockroach in the consommé.
These days, wrecking your ability to get credit is about as easy as blowing over a house of credit cards.
1. Close Credit Card Accounts
A quick way to guarantee that your credit score plummets faster than Lindsay Lohan’s career is to slice away your available credit by closing accounts.
You see, credit scores are not built around common sense. Doing away with unused lines of credit would make sense to most human beings, but not so much to a credit scoring model.
“Many of the things that can lower your credit score are kind of counterintuitive,” says Melinda Opperman, counselor and vice president of community outreach for Springboard, a consumer counseling organization.
When you close an account, it no longer adds to your total amount of available credit.
“There is a big chunk of your credit (score) that is factored on the amount owed — 30 percent of your credit score. So one-third of your score measures the amount of debt against the credit limit,” Opperman says.
Without changing your level of debt, lowering the credit available to you throws the ratio of debt to available credit out of whack.
For consumers with very low balances, closing newer credit accounts, slowly, can make sense — especially if the cards sport high interest rates or charge annual fees.
But having too much credit will rarely be a problem.
2. Let Credit Cards Collect Dust
Consumers shouldn’t necessarily close their credit accounts, but burying cards in the backyard or hoarding them in a shoebox in case of an emergency also may backfire.
Creditors are loathe to let just anyone have vast sums of potential money at their fingertips. Lately lenders have taken a use it or lose it attitude — preferably lose it.
Consumers encounter two pitfalls if a creditor closes an account for nonuse: The available credit is pared down and that account no longer contributes to their credit history.
If an open account is unused for a long enough period of time, the company can stop reporting it to the credit bureaus. If the account goes unreported, that account is not contributing to your available credit, which affects your credit utilization ratio.
The FICO score isn’t an award or demerit system, but a predictive score that tells lenders what you might do in the future.
“The FICO score looks at how recently the information was reported, so, if say, a credit card trade line (credit card account) hasn’t been reported in X number of months, then we will not include that information for certain calculations, basically any calculations that look at dollars,” says Barry Paperno, consumer operations manager for Fair Isaac and head of myFICO.com’s consumer education and advocacy.
That includes the amount of debt you’re carrying relative to the amount of credit available.
Plus, the fact that the creditor took action to close the account is also noted on your credit report.
“Some folks feel that because there is the narrative there, it is less desirable for it to say closed by creditor rather than by the consumer. However, I wouldn’t have someone be overly concerned with that because the narrative isn’t picked up by the credit score,” Opperman says.
“But it would be better if consumers were not going to use an account to either close it themselves, or if they want to maintain that credit relationship, we suggest that people use their cards periodically,” she says.
3. Run Up High Balances
If using too little credit sends up red flags to lenders, using too much credit sends up road flares and fireworks.
Like Goldilocks’ preference for porridge and sleeping accommodations, lenders want to see people use credit just right — not too much, not too little.
Gail Cunningham, spokeswoman for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling in Silver Spring, Md., says that the FICO score in particular favors lots of credit that is not utilized too little or too much.
“The FICO ‘08 score does want to see a lot of credit, but it would rather see many low balances on several cards rather than one large balance,” she says.
This can be damaging even to cardholders who run up a high balance every month on one card and then pay it off each month. The FICO score does not take those payments into account.
“For instance, charging $8,000 one month, pay it off. Then charge $10,000 the next, and pay it off. The model does not recognize that — it just reads that you are constantly carrying a large balance,” Cunningham says.
Thirty-percent of the FICO score looks at the amount borrowers owe and then compares it to the amount of credit they have available. This utilization ratio gets unpleasantly skewed when you owe more than 30 percent of what is available to you — particularly if one card is at or near its limit.
And it’s not only irresponsible or desperate spenders who have damaged scores because of large balances relative to their credit limits. It can happen to anyone who carries a balance if a lender decides to chop your credit limit — in response to market conditions, for instance.
To prospective lenders who view your credit report, it appears that you’ve maxed out your credit cards rather than keeping what was previously a low balance relative to the credit limit.
4. Apply for New Credit Repeatedly
New credit doesn’t mean just a shiny new credit card stretching out your wallet; it means a lower credit score — at least in the short run. The reasons are twofold.
First, new credit accounts lower the average age of your credit history.
5. Don’t Pay Fines or Non-Credit-Card Bills
Skipping out on overdue book fines at the library can hurt more than your book-borrowing privileges. It actually can negatively impact your credit score, as can other seemingly meaningless hassles, such as parking tickets.
“These days, public institutions and municipalities will use credit to get people to pay their fines and fees. So if someone has an old library fine that they never paid, it could be killing their credit score without them knowing it — which is why it is essential to check your score regularly,” Opperman says.
Other business relationships that don’t normally report your good payments can turn around and bite you if you decide not to pay as agreed. Any business, from garbage collectors to cell phone companies, can turn to the dark side when it comes to getting what’s owed to them, and that means sending your account to collections.
“Normally when you have an account with a merchant that doesn’t report directly to the credit bureaus, there is a difference between positive and negative reporting. A lot of service providers don’t report positive information. But the minute you do something wrong, they can outsource that debt to a collection agency who will report it,” Ulzheimer says.
“If I have a Verizon cell phone and pay $79 every single month for the phone, that information is not on any of my credit reports. But if I was on a contract that required that I pay every month and I don’t — it’s really only a matter of time before they send it to a collection agency and then the collection agency will report the past-due debt, or the collection debt, on my credit report,” he says.
6. Ignore Mistakes on Your Report
Say what you will about credit bureaus: They do make it easy to dispute inaccuracies on your credit report.
Sure, they may not fix them and it may be nearly impossible to ever speak to a live human being. But sometimes, probably more often than not, it works and it’s easy.
In order to dispute something on a credit report, one must, of course, check one’s credit report. It’s easier than it’s ever been, so consumers have unfettered access to their own credit information, a vast improvement over the laborious and time-consuming methods used in the dark ages before the Internet.
Unlike other issues that affect credit scores, mistakes sometimes can be remedied easily and quickly, so it’s worthwhile to keep tabs on your report.
7. Make Late Payments or Skip Them Entirely
It seems almost too obvious, but it bears stating that paying late and missing payments altogether are stellar ways to ensure that your credit score will scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Fortunately, as it happens, not all missed and late payments are counted equally in credit scores.
According to MyFICO.com’s Paperno, the FICO score judges missed and late payments by several different criteria, including how recently it happened, how severely late the payment was and the frequency of missed or late payments.
The recentness of the incident has the most bearing on the FICO score.
“Believe it or not, a 2-year-old incident of a payment being 90 days late is not as bad as a recent 30 days late (payment). The older one may have been one blemish in a long history but a 30-day this month can lead to a 60, which can lead to a 90,” Paperno says.
“The score is a predictor of future risk, and all of the factors that are looked at are viewed as to how well they can predict the future. So the more fresh or recent the information is, the more predictive it is,” he says. “Lenders are always looking to spot potential problems as early as possible.”
The further back in time the mistakes are, the less impact they have on your credit score. Obviously, the fewer mistakes consumers make, the better for their score. Once the mistakes are several years old, however, they may not affect the credit score at all.
