Of course! but you might want to make sure and wait for another member to confirm my answer as I am on the fence. Better yet, why don't you give a call to the Discover Card guys because they can give you an answer better...

And morality has been a concern of CAs since when?..

1) It the debt is assigned, it's probably a violation of the contract with the OC.

2) The first line CA's work pretty closely with the OC's and the OC's don't like PFD...they want to know whether or not you screwed up before they loan you more money. This is a big part of why it's easier to get a PFD if the debt has been sold once or twice, even if it's still within the SOL. The CA's don't want their supply of debt from a particular creditor to dry up..

This post has been edited by.

Jtoast.

: 30 December 2009 - 05:27 PM..

It would probably also create a lot of tension between CA's and CRA's...

Funny how thats not an issue when TRILLIONs roll out of congress.

To their paymasters, but if I want to PFD a $215 debt, I'm starting.

Down the slippery slope of moral hazard..lol.

I realize you arent arguing the point neccessarily, but I cant see.

That as the real issue..

CAs are not commonly know for following rules and laws in the pursuit of debt..

Before my journey into repair, I would have thought CAs would LEAP at.

A chance to settle for 100% if they just delete. That is obviously not the case..

Anyone else have any suggestions as why CAs seem unable to comprehend.

The win-win of PFDs?.

Edit: How would it cause tension? They are updating, deleting, re-aging accounts by.

The thousands already. Instead of re-aging an account to screw the consumer even.

Harder they could simply delete. I doubt there would be much more data traffic.

If PFDs became more widespread...

This post has been edited by.

Sonicanatidae.

: 30 December 2009 - 05:30 PM..

I agree with the moral aspect. Yeah, I know it's utterly hypocritical on their part, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less true..

I also believe it might violate rules somewhere. Not laws, but rules. I have nothing to back that up, though..

As a third point, and again I cannot fully articulate *why* this would necessarily be bad (for them), but the reputation for being easy push-overs would cause even more delinquencies if people knew they could default and eliminate later on a whim when they needed something. The whole lending system relies on the vast majority of people actually paying (with Discover card) their debts consistently..

ETA: Possibility #4... they're just bad people. (When talk of petty and vindictive tactics like re-aging enter the question.).

This post has been edited by.

Uncle Leo.

: 30 December 2009 - 06:54 PM..

Thanks everyone for posting possibilities. My apologies if I seem argumentative..

That's not my intention at all really. I've thought of some of the ideas presented.

And my "rebuttals" are simply my thinking on them and why I personally rejected.

Them as explanation enough and posted here..

I see the point about OCs not wanting defaulters to not show up when.

Apping for new loans, but at the same time, they are being hypocritical about it..

When they charge it off, thats a tax break, then when the debt is collected, they.

Are then repaid whatever portion their contract states..

Additionally, some portion of the "amount owed" is padding from the OC, not actually.

Money they have lost. Tacking on 4 40.00 late fees does not mean the OC is now short.

Another $160.00 "in their checking account", so to speak, so even a portion of the number.

Submitted to a CA for collection near absolves them financially, imo..

I also understand about contracts, but if thats the case, why are some people.

Able to secure PFDs and others not from the same CAs? I know some CAs.

Are just hardcore about not doing PFDs, but some have given mixed results.

Over time, telling me it's likely not a contractual prohibition...

It may well depend exactly how the PFD is worded. The PFD must not reinforce the debt legitimacy or it would be a bald violation of the CA's contract with the OC. The CA needs to be able to claim they were just deleting a reasonably disputable debt...

Moral hazard as mentioned above is referring to a financial sense not an ethical sense..

Http://en.wikipedia....ki/Moral_hazard.

Personally I feel that they are against bankruptcy, specifically Ch 7, because of a total loss vs. a partial recovery. Making things harder to totally default gives the CA an opportunity to recover more of the debt. Just my .02 cents...

Thanks to Uncle Leo and 360 for expanding on my comments!.

Yes, i'm talking about Moral Hazard as in micro economics, see the Wikipedia link above..

This is a classic moral hazard, really. People would behave much differently if they were insulated from the risk of bad credit history. I could essentially write my own credit terms. Stop paying (with Discover card) a CC, take a temporary hit, then pay it off whenever I want with no lasting consequence..

PFD is a fantastic tool for CAs while it's used in this current, sparing way. But if it became common, that could change credit default behavior in dramatic ways...