Is it bad to have multiple bank accounts?

Anthorn

masonic wrote: »

I don't think it is nitpicking when you have previously stated:

If it carries a hefty penalty, then getting the maximum number right is important, isn't it? So, based on what you have subsequently posted, that maximum number you can have on your file and avoid "a hefty penalty" is zero. Either that or the information from Experian is being misinterpreted by you.

Comes across to me as verbal diarrhea! If you want to get back on topic gimme a shout.

masonic

Anthorn wrote: »

Verbal diarrhea! If you want to get back on topic gimme a shout.

That was one of my shorter posts. I can be considerably more verbose than that. It was, however, completely on topic. But wait a minute...

Anthorn wrote: »

Bye-bye

Am I that hard to say goodbye to that you couldn't bring yourself to leave?

Anthorn

masonic wrote: »

That was one of my shorter posts. I can be considerably more verbose than that. It was, however, completely on topic. But wait a minute...


Am I that hard to say goodbye to that you couldn't bring yourself to leave?

You were completely off topic, even more off topic than you are now. Your posts are related to comprehension and grammar and not related to the topic of the discussion. Can you not see that?

Lastly your comprehension of Experian's standpoint on credit searches which I have quoted is that according to Experian, zero credit searches will reduce a credit score. That doesn't make sense because something which is not there cannot have that effect. I don't suppose you see that either.

Robbieh

What is this "Hefty Penalty" you talk about?

Robbieh

Anthorn wrote: »

My last in this thread. Pointless continuing.

Oh sorry! You've gone!:rotfl:

Anthorn

Robbieh wrote: »

What is this "Hefty Penalty" you talk about?

It all depends on whether you regard the effect of credit searches as a penalty or not. There are different means of approaching credit applications and therefore credit searches and all of them are haphazard.

One way is to make application after application until you get a rejection and then not do any more for six months to a year when the searches are removed from the credit history. Another way that I follow is to avoid that rejection in the first place by severely limiting credit applications. That calls for future planning and I do that too. I know exactly what I'm going to apply for in August - September.

The penalty is the rejection and the severe penalty is not being able to apply to the same lender again for the period dictated by that lender. It's also pretty much given that banks share information with others in the same banking group. So it could be that you are blocked from a whole banking group.

I wonder how much this post is going to be dissected rofl

masonic

Anthorn wrote: »

You were completely off topic, even more off topic than you are now. Your posts are related to comprehension and grammar and not related to the topic of the discussion. Can you not see that?

My posts were related to how many recent credit searches somebody can have without it affecting their Experian credit score. Something that you got wrong. I have not mentioned grammar at all, but your lack of reading comprehension caused you to post incorrect information (as usual ), so I was merely trying to help you understand the text you quoted. As it happens, you are partially correct that it was off topic, because what affects someone's Experian credit score is not a guide to how many credit application they can make before suffering "a hefty penalty".

Lastly your comprehension of Experian's standpoint on credit searches which I have quoted is that according to Experian, zero credit searches will reduce a credit score. That doesn't make sense because something which is not there cannot have that effect. I don't suppose you see that either.

Again, your lack of reading comprehension has led to you making an incorrect assumption. The only statement I made in relation to reducing the Experian credit score is the following:

"What people want to know is how many searches can they make before it starts affecting their credit score, and, if you want to use Experian's statement as evidence, your answer needs to be a number that is not "any", namely zero."

Here is reading comprehension lession #2:

When a number of searches can be made before it starts affecting a credit score, then that means that the number in question does not affect the credit score, but any number higher than the aforementioned number does. So, in this instance, zero searches will not affect the score, but one or more searches will.

Now I'm sure you'll accuse me of going off topic again, but discussions by their very nature meander around a bit as each party introduces new material to which the other party may wish to address. For example, your lack of reading comprehension as evidenced by the content of your posts. HTH

Anthorn

masonic wrote: »

My posts were related to how many recent credit searches somebody can have without it affecting their Experian credit score. Something that you got wrong. I have not mentioned grammar at all, but your lack of reading comprehension caused you to post incorrect information (as usual ), so I was merely trying to help you understand the text you quoted. As it happens, you are partially correct that it was off topic, because what affects someone's Experian credit score is not a guide to how many credit application they can make before suffering "a hefty penalty".


Again, your lack of reading comprehension has led to you making an incorrect assumption. The only statement I made in relation to reducing the Experian credit score is the following:

"What people want to know is how many searches can they make before it starts affecting their credit score, and, if you want to use Experian's statement as evidence, your answer needs to be a number that is not "any", namely zero."

Here is reading comprehension lession #2:

When a number of searches can be made before it starts affecting a credit score, then that means that the number in question does not affect the credit score, but any number higher than the aforementioned number does. So, in this instance, zero searches will not affect the score, but one or more searches will.

Now I'm sure you'll accuse me of going off topic again, but discussions by their very nature meander around a bit as each party introduces new material to which the other party may wish to address. For example, your lack of reading comprehension as evidenced by the content of your posts. HTH

You say I have a problem with reading comprehension but yet you make these long posts. Perhaps you should condense it into just a few short words that I can understand

One thing above all others is certain: You are most definitely a pedant.

masonic

Anthorn wrote: »

You say I have a problem with reading comprehension but yet you make these long posts. Perhaps you should condense it into just a few short words that I can understand

I can try: wot u posted was wrong.

One thing above all others is certain: You are most definitely a pedant.

When it comes to people posting incorrect information and misleading others, then I find it extremely difficult to simply turn a blind eye. I wouldn't class that as being a pedant, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Anthorn

masonic wrote: »

I can try: wot u posted was wrong.


When it comes to people posting incorrect information and misleading others, then I find it extremely difficult to simply turn a blind eye. I wouldn't class that as being a pedant, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Pedant: a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

c.f. pedantry, pedantic.