Credit Spree and What is considered to Many Inquiries

[sarge12]

TT, first I thought Revelate was wrong and I was right, then with the help of the internet I found out I was wrong about what I thought to be right. Revelate was right about me being wrong. Now here you come trying to present evidence that I was wrong about being wrong, and right in what I first thought was right. And that is why we have drug problems in society!!!!

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

TT, based on that someone with just AU accounts would not have a FICO score or am I misreading it?

We know that isn't the case under FICO 8 based on anecdotal reports.  Also while I hate to admit it, things posted in the product have been flatly wrong previously and were changed after I pointed them out... I strongly suspect this is one of them unless it changed for FICO 9, and I'd submit that when they made that change for FICO 8 initially there were screams, I can't fathom their being able to go down the same road again.

---

I have explicit evidence of showing my $576 AU balance as not being considered in open accounts with balances and not being counted in total account revolving balance. Also interesting is that AMEX charge did count in total account revolving balance but then Ag UT% was 0% - because charge count balance IS NOT used in the UT calculation. 

Every one of those text boxes (which are direct from myFICO) proved true for me and frankly I was blown away. The other info I gained comparing July/Aug 3B reports along with a couple from Feb/Mar provided sufficient granularity to isolate factors and compare how various models reacted relative to one another. I had quite a few epiphanies regarding treatment of charge cards and charge card B/HB, AU card balance, 0% Ag UT and # cards reporting balances among Fico 98, Fico 04 and Fico 08.

Stumbled on some rather remarkable findings (for me at least). The 3B reports set me back more than $200 but, I uncovered some gems.

[sarge12]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@Revelate wrote:

TT, based on that someone with just AU accounts would not have a FICO score or am I misreading it?

We know that isn't the case under FICO 8 based on anecdotal reports.  Also while I hate to admit it, things posted in the product have been flatly wrong previously and were changed after I pointed them out... I strongly suspect this is one of them unless it changed for FICO 9, and I'd submit that when they made that change for FICO 8 initially there were screams, I can't fathom their being able to go down the same road again.

---

I have explicit evidence of showing my $576 AU balance as not being considered in open accounts with balances and not being counted in total account revolving balance. Also interesting is that AMEX charge did count in total account revolving balance but then Ag UT% was 0% - because charge count balance IS NOT used in the UT calculation. 

Every one of those text boxes (which are direct from myFICO) proved true for me and frankly I was blown away. The other info I gained comparing July/Aug 3B reports along with a couple from Feb/Mar provided sufficient granularity to isolate factors and compare how various models reacted relative to one another. I had quite a few epiphanies regarding treatment of charge cards and charge card B/HB, AU card balance, 0% Ag UT and # cards reporting balances among Fico 98, Fico 04 and Fico 08.

Stumbled on some rather remarkable findings (for me at least). The 3B reports set me back more than $200 but, I uncovered some gems.

---

Now if this is a joke...it is not funny!!! Time to raid the liquor cabinet. Thomas Thumb, I like you, but you are a trouble maker!!!!

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@sarge12 wrote:

TT, first I thought Revelate was wrong and I was right, then with the help of the internet I found out I was wrong about what I thought to be right. Revelate was right about me being wrong. Now here you come trying to present evidence that I was wrong about being wrong, and right in what I first thought was right. And that is why we have drug problems in society!!!!

---

Well ... when something happens to you directly you are in the best position to speak to the results. In my case the AU card is not considered on Fico 08 but does count on the earlier Fico 04 and Fico 98 models. I've got it 100% isolated. It just so happens Fico treated my AU card exactly the way they said they would in their text boxes.

Perhaps I am not married and don't know it so Fico views me as an abuser. Kidding aside, AU status may depend on whether the AU designee has a card that gets some use. In my case a AU card was issued in my name - but I have not used it in 18 years (lost the card over 10 years ago).

BBS also has an AU card that is not recognized by Fico 08. I don't think he has used his AU card in years either. Additionally, a son who has been AU on his dad's card for many years recently reported he had no Fico score - again I don't recall the son using an AU card. The son has no accounts of his own. That's another example of Fico not considering an AU card. I recommended he get an account in his own name. Additionally, some woman a few months back posted that she received notification that her 4 AU cards (husband was primary) were not being counted in her credit history. She could not get a loan because she had no credit of her own.

It certainly appears that Fico 08 applies some method of madness to discriminate among AU card holders and for me they followed through on what they said they would do. I'll just have to get by best I can. 

[sarge12]

I just looked at my 3B report...nearly every metric states "Authorized user accounts are not figured in this attribute"....if it is a lie fico is telling it...now I am very confused!!!

[sarge12]

And now there is this...which directly contradicts their own 3B report question mark popup

[Revelate]

I'll feedback it, seems wrong from FICO Business's current FICO 8 marketing.

[sarge12]

---

@Revelate wrote:

I'll feedback it, seems wrong from FICO Business's current FICO 8 marketing.

---

Yes, well when the fico ? popup disagrees with fico support, it is a problem. Also T_T says it did not consider AU data on his reports. I suddenly do not feel so bad about believing the AU data was discounted. I probably got that from their own popup description. Maybe there is even some disagreement among those working at fico that enter the data...if so, that is really messed up.

[sarge12]

---

@Revelate wrote:

I'll feedback it, seems wrong from FICO Business's current FICO 8 marketing.

---

Revelate, the popups even say AU accounts are not considered in installment loan balances...have you ever heard of an AU on an installment loan,,,cosigner, or joint maybe, but AU on installment loans? They launched fico08 in 2008...how long does it take for them to work out the bugs. I mean we pay 60 bucks for a 3B report.

[Revelate]

---

@sarge12 wrote:

---

@Revelate wrote:

I'll feedback it, seems wrong from FICO Business's current FICO 8 marketing.

---

Revelate, the popups even say AU accounts are not considered in installment loan balances...have you ever heard of an AU on an installment loan,,,cosigner, or joint maybe, but AU on installment loans? They launched fico08 in 2008...how long does it take for them to work out the bugs. I mean we pay 60 bucks for a 3B report.

---

Every revision and content release needs to be vetted and there's a very limited number of people who know the inner workings of the algorithm at FICO for all the usual reasons (which they deem important enough to put in their SEC filings).

I've not heard of an AU on an installment loan, not sure what use it would serve honestly.  The 60 bucks is for the scores, the rest is just presentation which I agree should be correct but it isn't in all cases historically and I'm not convinced it is here either.  I was just a volunteer moderator, I don't have any insight to the inner workings at FICO other than what they choose to disclose which is frankly really really limited.