What's the fuss about Credit Score / History?
Simply staying out of debt is not a good way of getting a good credit score.  My aged aunt has never had a credit card, loan or mortgage, has always paid cash or cheque for everything, never failed to pay her utility bills on time.  Her credit score is lousy because she has never had any debts to pay off so there is no credit history data for her.  To the credit checking agencies she barely exists.  To get a good score (UK) then get a few debts and pay them off on time. Since we seem to be discussing credit score and credit history interchangeably, if I can add credit report as the third part of the puzzle, I have another point. Your credit score and credit report can be effective tools to notice identity theft or fraud in your name.   Keeping track of your report will allow you to not only protect your good name (which is apparently in dispute here) but also those businesses who ultimately end up paying for the stolen goods or services. Your credit score, for better or worse, is increasingly about more than just getting loans. For example insurance companies can use it to some extent to determine your rates,. "If human beings were Homo Economicus, i.e. textbook rational and self-interested economic-minded beings, as opposed to simply human, then yes, simple advice like ""just stay out of debt and your credit score will take care of itself"" could work.  Your simplification would be very persuasive to such a being. However, people are not perfectly rational.  We buy something we shouldn't have, we charge it on a credit card, we can't afford to pay it off at the end of the month.  We lose our job.  Our furnace breaks down, or our roof leaks, and we didn't anticipate the replacement cost.  Some of this is our fault, some of it isn't – basically, shit happens .. and we get into debt...  maybe even knowing all the while we shouldn't have. Our credit history and score takes a hit.  Only then do we find out there are consequences! Our interest rates go up, our insurance companies raise premiums, our prospective new employers or landlords run credit checks and either deny us the job or the apartment. Telling a person who asks for help about their credit history/score that they shouldn't have taken on debt in the first place is like telling the farmer he should have kept the barn door shut so the horse wouldn't run out.  While it is not ""bad"" advice, it's not the only kind of advice to offer when somebody finds themselves in such a situation. Adding advice about corrective actions is more helpful.  The person probably already know that they shouldn't have overspent in the first place and got into debt.  Yes, remind them of the value of being sensible about debt in the first place – it's good reinforcement – but add some helpful advice to the mix.  e.g. ""So you're in debt.  You shouldn't have lived beyond your means.  But now that you are in this mess, here's what you can do to improve the situation.""" I justed rented a new house, and they ran my credit to see if I am a reliable person. "Credit Unions have long advocated their services based on the fact that they consider your ""character.""  Unfortunately, they are then at a loss to explain how they determine the value of your character, other than to say that you're buddies & play pool together so they'll give you a loan. Your Credit History / Score is as accurate a representation of your character in business dealings as can be meaningfully quantified.  It tracks your ability to effectively use and manage debt, and your propensity to pay it back responsibly or default on obligations.  While it isn't perfect, it is certainly one of the best means currently available for determining someone's trustworthiness when it comes to financial matters." Use credit and pay your bills on time. That's really about it.  If you do that, you don't need to think about credit score. It's really a big distraction that is dwelled on too much.
"This is somewhat unbelievable.  I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts?  Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay.  Would you want to service that client?  This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit?  If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries.  I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue.  This has to be certified/return receipt requested.  If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit.  I would do this with a money order or cashiers check.  Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response.  This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker.  This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional:  Sue the company in small claims court.  This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit.  There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this.  Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score.  A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850.  Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am ""enjoying"" the highest credit score of my life, over 820.  Do you know how I did it?  I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything.  So why does it matter?  It is a bit ridiculous." A lot of companies now do credit checks before employment. They may decide that you are untrustworthy by having shoddy credit after a foreclosure/bankruptcy. The past 2 jobs I have they did a credit check. I wonder how companies use that information in the hiring process. While one credit provider (or credit reference agency) might score you in one way, others may score you differently including treating different things that contribute to your score differently. Different credit providers may also not see all of your credit score as potentially some data may not be available to all credit suppliers. Further too many searches may trigger systems that recognise behavior that is a sign of possible fraudulent activity (such as applying for many items of credit in a short space of time). Whether this would directly affect a score or trigger manual checks is also likely to vary. In situations like this a person could have applied for (say) a dozen credit cards, with all the credit checks being performed before there is any credit history for any of those dozen cards. The SCHUFA explicitly says on their website that their scoring system is a secret. However, if your goal is to be credit-worthy for example to get financing for a house or a car or whatever, just pay any loans and your credit card back on time and you'll be fine. There is no need to build a credit history. I just got a mortgage on a new house without any real credit history. I have one credit card which I only use on vacations because some countries don't take my debit card, and I always put money on it before I use it, so I've technically never borrowed money from a bank at all. My banker looked at my SCHUFA with me and we saw that there was nothing in there except for the credit card, which has a 500€ limit and if I maxed it out, the monthly interest would be 6,80€ so he added that 6,80€ to my expenses calculation and that was it. If you're having trouble getting a loan and you don't know why, you can ask the SCHUFA for the data they have on you and you can correct any mistakes they might have made. Sometimes, especially when you have the same full name and birth date as somebody else, the SCHUFA does get things mixed up and you have to sort it out. 'Perfect' credit would be defined by your credit score.  You may have a perfect repayment history, but that is only one factor in your credit score.  Paying off a loan early doesn't by itself cause your score to go down.  A lack of history, however, will result in a lower score.  Lenders use the score because the general consensus is that what you have done in the past is the best indicator of what you will do in the future.  In essence, your credit score tells a potential creditor what type of risk they are taking by lending you money.  If you have very little history, the risk is not necessarily higher, but it is less predictable, so you have a lower score. These pages explain what makes up your credit score: http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/ https://www.cnbc.com/id/36737279 https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/help/5-parts-components-fico-credit-score-6000.php "I always hesitate to provide an answer to ""how does this affect my credit score?"" questions, because the credit agencies do not publish their formulas and the formulas do change over time. And many others have done more reverse engineering than I to figure out what factors do affect the scores. To some extent, there is no way to know other than to get your credit score and track it over time. (The credit report will tell you what the largest negative factors are.) However, let me make my prediction. You have credit, you aren't using a large percentage of it, and don't have defaults/late payments. So, yes, I think it would help your credit score and would build a history of credit. Since this is so unusual, this is just an educated guess." But cash talks. If you can save yourself a grand or two a month in mortgage overpayment, and have the cash for 1st and last month's rent plus deposit, a job or two, etc. That crap means more than a credit score. Plus don't rent from people you can't talk to about with what is going on in your life.   My personal credit has always been shit (because the morality associated with debt is complete bullshit) since my 20s and I have never had a problem renting, because I let my landlords know I am human and that paying rent on time and in full is my top bill to pay.   People are beginning to realize that FICO scores are pretty meaningless in this Lesser Depression.  e: prepositional indifference Typically one wants to see a credit score, just because you may have money in the bank and decent income does not mean your going to pay, there are plenty of people who have the money but simply refuse to cough it up. Credit is simply a relative way of seeing where one fits against another in a larger group, it shows that this person not only can pay, but does pay. While not having a credit history should make no difference, I can and hopefully easily posited above why it can be necessary to have one. Not all landlords will require a credit check, I was not required to give one, I did not have much credit to begin with, given that, I was forced to cough up a higher degree of a security deposit. Paying on time is the most critical factor. Paying ahead on the loan will not help you from a credit score POV, but it will not hurt you either. In general, to maintain a good credit history, don't bother focusing on credit scores. Frankly, there is very little reason for you to even know what your score is. Just do the following: Lenders want to deal with people with long histories of paying debts back on time. "Great explanation. I want to add 2 thing: 1) Credit rating agencies played there role in messing up the economy, by giving subprime (higher risk) mortgage backed securities AAA rating.  2) ""Other banks saw this happening and were forced to lower their requirements for issuing mortgages."" Well not banks, but mortgage brokers lowered there requirement from issuing mortgages. They even started to issue NINA (no income verification, no assets verification) loans!" "Dan's link (he deleted his answer, BTW) is fine, it showed the components of the score FICO offers.  Each input has data behind it, a bell curve of the behaviors and risk of the person behind it. For example, we've discussed utilization many time here. The ideal utilization is not 0%, but 1-19%. This does not mean paying interest, or carrying charges from month to month.  Say I had just one card with a $10K limit. I'd want to be sure I never ran a bill above $2000. If I did, I'd see a slight drop in my score, and next month, it would go back to normal. In my case, I have enough available credit that going over 20% is rare, and if it happened, I'd pay the bill down before the bill was issued, just make a mid-cycle payment.  FICO decided that those who go over 20% have a higher risk of default. And it gets higher as it goes up. Same with every aspect of the score's components.  You are comparing US to non US use. In the US, it seems far more common to use our cards. In my family's case, we use very little cash, and run most of our spending through our cards.  As far as The David is concerned, one should separate those who carry a balance from those who pay in full. The pay in full users are better off for their habits and responsible card use. In the US, it's not easy to rent a car or book a hotel with no card. Cards offer a cash rebate that adds up fast, and purchase protection from fraudulent vendors. They also offer extended warranty coverage.  The David, and others, claim that ""studies prove those using cards spend 10-15% more than cash buyers."" This is a proven fact from scientific studies. Only they don't exist. The best I've seen proves that college kids given a $20 bill spend more carefully than those given a $20 credit card. This doesn't extrapolate to a family budget, and never will. But that quote has a way of being repeated as fact. Yes, it's non-sense, thank you for reading and quoting my blog, I recognize the quote.  The report also shows accounts that have gone to collection. An electric bill isn't a regularly reported item, it's assumed your lights are on. But if you stop paying the bill and they send your account to a collection agency, you'll see it hit your report.  In response to the comment below - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied article titled Monopoly Money: The Effect of Payment Coupling and Form on Spending Behavior runs 13 pages but on the first page offers ""Do consumers spend differently when using one payment mode relative to another mode? For example, do consumers spend more when they receive $50 in the form of a gift card than in the form of cash? If indeed they do, then why? This research addresses these issues.""  $50? A $50 gift card is a nuisance, I try to use it up within hours of getting one. As I stated above, the behavior of a person with such a card doesn't scale to a many-thousand-per-month budget. Such articles, in my opinion, are nonsense, proving nothing.  Unfortunately, this is a bit of a tangent to the original question, and if I put up a stand-alone ""Is it a fact that people spend more if using a card than cash?"" the question would result in being closed as one that's seeking opinions, not facts." "Credit scores are not such a big deal in Canada as they are in the US and even some European countries.  One reason for this: the Social Insurance Number (SIN number) isn't used for so many purposes like the Social Security Number (SSN) in the US.  The SIN number isn't even required to get credit (but with some exceptions it is needed to open an interest-bearing savings account, so that the interest income can be reported).  You can refuse to provide the SIN number to most private companies. Canada also has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates of any large country, so new arrivals are expected, and services are geared up for them.  Most of the banks offer special deals for ""New Canadians"".  You should get a credit card (even if just a secured credit card) through them with one of these offers to start a credit file anyway, but there's no need to actually use it much.  Auto-paying a utility bill through the card, and paying it off in full each month, is one way to keep it active.  No need to ever pay any interest. Most major apartment rental firms will expect a good proportion of their renters to be new to Canada, so should have procedures in place to deal with it (such as a higher deposit).  You should not give them your SIN for a credit check, even when you're more established. Same for utilities, they can just charge a higher deposit if they can't credit check you.  For private landlords, everything is negotiable (but see the laws link at the end of this answer). You will later need a credit rating for a mortgage on a house (if not paying cash), so it's worth getting that one token credit card.  Useful for car rental also. Here's a fairly complete summary of the laws on renting in Canada, which includes the maximum deposits that can be asked for, and notice periods." If your accounts have an overdraft facility, then every open account is classed as available credit which has a negative effect on your credit score.  It's not normally a major concern but it is a factor.   (nb. this definitely applies to the UK, maybe not where you are) "Had they made a billion dollars it still wouldn't be arbitrage. The definition of arbitrage is ""the simultaneous purchase and sale of similar commodities in different markets to take advantage of price discrepancy"". What they did was take advantage of a loophole where they took free money to buy more free money. I believe the American government calls that Quantitative Easing. Bazinga." So, couple of things. Firstly, every international ETF includes risk disclosure language in the prospectus covering both market disruption events as well as geopolitical risk, so the sponsor would be pretty well insulated from direct liability for anything. If the Russian market were truly shut down there are true-up mechanisms in place but in the scenario you're describing the market is still open, it's just only a few participants can trade in it.  First thing to do is shut down creates- that is, allow no new money to come into the fund. This at least prevents your problem from getting bigger.   Second you're going to switch all redemptions to in kind only. MV itself can't trade in the underlying so they're kind of jammed here. An ETF sponsor can't really refuse your redemption request (can delay, but only for a short time), but they can control the form in which they respond to it.    What theoretically should happen here is an AP not subject to sanctions will step in and handle redemptions.  Issue is, they'll probably charge for this so you should expect the fund to start trading at a discount to NAV (you, as an investor, sell to them cheaply, they submit a redemption request, then sell the stocks locally). Someone else has pointed that market makers will start stat arbing the fund using correlated/substitute instruments, which totally will help keep things in line, but my guess is that you'd still see the name trading away from NAV regardless. Driver of this will be the amount of money desperate to get out - if investors are content to wait the sanctions out who knows.