OMG! This can't be right!

[Transmogrifying_Bee]

You might want to check your credit report for the credit bureau (EQ or TU, if on Credit Karma) that reported the unexpected score drop.  Did one of your longer term credit card companies (or other type of credit account) suddenly stop reporting on their card?  A closed account will still report for 10 years, but will then drop off afterwards. 

I had a Dillards account that was opened in 1979.  Unfortunately, this (joint) account was closed after my divorce, but kept reporting until last month.  My Experian credit score suddenly plummeted about 40 points after losing an account that had 35 YEARS of history behind it!  My AAoA as well as the length of my credit history took quite a dive! 

Checking your credit report (under the Accounts section) will verify this possibility, assuming you have an earlier credit report to compare with your current one.

Just a thought!  Good luck...!!!

[tufa4311]

---

@nyancat wrote:

Don't take my comments personally, they're not personal. They apply to anyone. One of the ideas of VantageScore is that it will be harder to improve your VantageScore, and frankly, I don't know you. Maybe you changed, maybe you haven't. That's irrelevant, credit scoring isn't about an individual, it's about risk analysis in population groups. It's simply statistics, nothing personal.

Frankly, I tend to think that people rarely change, and thus, a score that is more stable and harder to clean up impresses me. I know, hardly the mantra of these forums, but that's okay. I'm not here because of my credit history, I'm here because I find the risk analysis interesting. And from what I've seen, VantageScore 3.0 has some very impressive traits. It impresses me that you've managed to improve your FICO, but your VantageScore is still quite poor.

Again, don't take that personally. It's not a judgement call. It's certainly not me saying you "deserve" a poor score, because again - it isn't about individuals, it's about population profiles.

Of course, the real test is time. Who will prove right? Banks trust FICO as they've been around forever, and it will take decades for VantageScore to demonstrate whether or not they have a better risk model. But every time I see one of these posts that amounts to "what am I doing wrong, I have a great FICO score now but my VantageScore is terrible" I am impressed. Not out of some personal judgement, but out of the risk analysis concept of stability - that a person will only very slowly truly become less of a risk.

---

nyancat, following the conversation you seem to be saying that becuase VantageScore is "harder" to adjust in the short term that it is a more stable score and thus a better risk model. I find that interesting, could you expand?

1) If indeed VantageScore is harder to change simply by lowering one's uilization or dropping some lates from a report, why do you feel by definition that would make it a better scoring model?

2) Are you assuming it is a better scoring model simply due to the fact that it seems to be more difficult to manipulate?

3) I was able to add almost 100 FICO points to my score by lowering my utilization from 20% to 1%, getting the one 30-Day Late removed (not becuase I didn't actually pay it late, just through a goodwill removal) and be increasing my credit limits. Would you say that 700's I am now in FICO is not really a could indicator of my credit worthiness due to the fact that, while it took almost 6 months, it wasn't really that hard for me to do? (to be fair, there is no way that 6 months of cleaning up should be a good indicator of a lowered risk)

4) my CK score also increased by about 100 points, which is a Vantage - since this is the case it would suggest that Vantage is just as "easy" to manipulate as FICO but I don't think CK used Vantage from the beginning. Not sure.

5) and finally, I think the preface of your argument was the Vantge was harder to "game", as you said "It is SUPPOSED to be harder to improve your VantageScore" - but in this case, it's not that it was harder to improve, it's that it was the only one to drop by about 100 points. In addition this was about a decrease, not an increase, if Vantage was indeed more stable why was it the only one to drop a stagerring 100 pounts and in only 30 days? That doesn't seem to indicate stability - I would think that, other than a drastic change to one's credit report, a stable model would "know" that one's credit actions were going in the wrong direction and would never be "surprised" and drop 100 points, again, unless it wassome drastic change which in this case  I don;t think there was.

To be clear, I have no cards in the game of the ongoing emotional tide in the post - I'm just interested in the arguments you make.

As well, regarding the FICO vs FAKO thing, there was a post that spoke to this which I found thoughful - all score's are FAKO's other than the one your lender will be using. In other words, the only score that matters is the one that you will be judged with.

[Anonymous]

An intelligent person would be able to understand that both claims could be correct. It's been said on here that some banks use a combination of both scores to create an internal scoring model. It's also been said on here and in news articles I've read, that some banks are experimenting with the Vantage model, while primarily using FICO. So even if Vantage claimes that 9 out of 10 of the biggest lenders use it, while FICO claims to be involved in 100% of lending decisions, they could both in theory be correct.

If a lender has been using the FICO model for years, it would be risky to drop it and switch to the Vantage model overnight, and the lending game is all about managing risk. Why do you think so many lenders still use older FICO models? How many lenders use the latest version?

The person who made the original statement that he believes Vantage will become much more popular is clearly his own opinion, and only time will tell if he is correct. To claim that he is wrong because FICO is still dominate is unfair as even FICO has proven that lenders will slowly adopt a new model. To the best of my knowledge, no lender I have gotten involved with has ever used FICO 9, not all have used FICO 08. 

[nyancat]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

An intelligent person would be able to understand that both claims could be correct. It's been said on here that some banks use a combination of both scores to create an internal scoring model. It's also been said on here and in news articles I've read, that some banks are experimenting with the Vantage model, while primarily using FICO. So even if Vantage claimes that 9 out of 10 of the biggest lenders use it, while FICO claims to be involved in 100% of lending decisions, they could both in theory be correct.

If a lender has been using the FICO model for years, it would be risky to drop it and switch to the Vantage model overnight, and the lending game is all about managing risk. Why do you think so many lenders still use older FICO models? How many lenders use the latest version?

The person who made the original statement that he believes Vantage will become much more popular is clearly his own opinion, and only time will tell if he is correct. To claim that he is wrong because FICO is still dominate is unfair as even FICO has proven that lenders will slowly adopt a new model. To the best of my knowledge, no lender I have gotten involved with has ever used FICO 9, not all have used FICO 08. 

---

Basically right, though 100% of lending decisions for FICO seems more like hyperbole. Heck, there have been loans on nothing more than a handshake. FICO is extremely useful. And I'm SURE many who are using Vantage are using them side by side on the same loan to compare accuracy over time.

We'll see if I'm right, but I really think VantageScore is going to break FICO's monopoly over the coming years.

[nyancat]

---

@tufa4311 wrote:

---

@nyancat wrote:

Don't take my comments personally, they're not personal. They apply to anyone. One of the ideas of VantageScore is that it will be harder to improve your VantageScore, and frankly, I don't know you. Maybe you changed, maybe you haven't. That's irrelevant, credit scoring isn't about an individual, it's about risk analysis in population groups. It's simply statistics, nothing personal.

Frankly, I tend to think that people rarely change, and thus, a score that is more stable and harder to clean up impresses me. I know, hardly the mantra of these forums, but that's okay. I'm not here because of my credit history, I'm here because I find the risk analysis interesting. And from what I've seen, VantageScore 3.0 has some very impressive traits. It impresses me that you've managed to improve your FICO, but your VantageScore is still quite poor.

Again, don't take that personally. It's not a judgement call. It's certainly not me saying you "deserve" a poor score, because again - it isn't about individuals, it's about population profiles.

Of course, the real test is time. Who will prove right? Banks trust FICO as they've been around forever, and it will take decades for VantageScore to demonstrate whether or not they have a better risk model. But every time I see one of these posts that amounts to "what am I doing wrong, I have a great FICO score now but my VantageScore is terrible" I am impressed. Not out of some personal judgement, but out of the risk analysis concept of stability - that a person will only very slowly truly become less of a risk.

---

nyancat, following the conversation you seem to be saying that becuase VantageScore is "harder" to adjust in the short term that it is a more stable score and thus a better risk model. I find that interesting, could you expand?

1) If indeed VantageScore is harder to change simply by lowering one's uilization or dropping some lates from a report, why do you feel by definition that would make it a better scoring model?

2) Are you assuming it is a better scoring model simply due to the fact that it seems to be more difficult to manipulate?

3) I was able to add almost 100 FICO points to my score by lowering my utilization from 20% to 1%, getting the one 30-Day Late removed (not becuase I didn't actually pay it late, just through a goodwill removal) and be increasing my credit limits. Would you say that 700's I am now in FICO is not really a could indicator of my credit worthiness due to the fact that, while it took almost 6 months, it wasn't really that hard for me to do? (to be fair, there is no way that 6 months of cleaning up should be a good indicator of a lowered risk)

4) my CK score also increased by about 100 points, which is a Vantage - since this is the case it would suggest that Vantage is just as "easy" to manipulate as FICO but I don't think CK used Vantage from the beginning. Not sure.

5) and finally, I think the preface of your argument was the Vantge was harder to "game", as you said "It is SUPPOSED to be harder to improve your VantageScore" - but in this case, it's not that it was harder to improve, it's that it was the only one to drop by about 100 points. In addition this was about a decrease, not an increase, if Vantage was indeed more stable why was it the only one to drop a stagerring 100 pounts and in only 30 days? That doesn't seem to indicate stability - I would think that, other than a drastic change to one's credit report, a stable model would "know" that one's credit actions were going in the wrong direction and would never be "surprised" and drop 100 points, again, unless it wassome drastic change which in this case  I don;t think there was.

To be clear, I have no cards in the game of the ongoing emotional tide in the post - I'm just interested in the arguments you make.

As well, regarding the FICO vs FAKO thing, there was a post that spoke to this which I found thoughful - all score's are FAKO's other than the one your lender will be using. In other words, the only score that matters is the one that you will be judged with.

---

CreditKarma changed score models to VantageScore 3.0 very recently, I imagine the 100 point difference was between different models. If I'm wrong on this, that is quite concerning.

All other scores are FAKO's? That's a bit of a reach, don't you think. Odds are you'll never see the exact FICO model your lender is using. FAKOs is a term that only rightfully applies to scores pretending to be an estimation of FICO, like the TransUnion New Account score that Credit Karma used to use.

I'm thinking it MIGHT be better if it's harder to manipulate, and I find it fascinating. Thinking it IS better, now that requires statistics. Stats I'm sure banks are gathering as we type.

[takeshi74]

---

@tufa4311 wrote:

As well, regarding the FICO vs FAKO thing, there was a post that spoke to this which I found thoughful - all score's are FAKO's other than the one your lender will be using. In other words, the only score that matters is the one that you will be judged with.

---

FICO/FAKO and scoring model relevance are two entirely different things even though many seem to conflate the two.  If it's a FICO it's a FICO.  If it's not a FICO it's a FAKO.

If the creditor you're applying to uses a scoring model it's relevant.  If they don't, it's not.

---

@nyancat wrote:

And the term "FAKO" is insulting to anyone trying to build a better mousetrap (or score model). They're not pretending to be FICO, which is what "FAKO" implies. They're offering a product they claim is better.

---

It's a silly term IMO like any other play on name but it's what people use.  IMO it acknowledges that FICO is the industry standard and the other models are not just attempting to imitate but replace it as well.

[Anonymous]

What I had seen in another thread in which a FAKO argument broke out.....the general consensus was that a FAKO was a score in which holds no relevance but is passed off as a legitimate score.
Since Vantage is a growingly legitimate model, it would not fit that definition of FAKO.

[racer-x]

FICO actually does represent something, whereas the FAKO acronym doesn't represent anything....but then again, it could still be a FICO in this context - "Fake Isaac Corporation', it's still 'FICO':

Let's say this instead:  If it's a fico score, then it's a fico score.  If it's not a fico score, this it's not a fico score.

As mentioned, FAKO tends to insuate irrelevance, illegitimacy.

Death to FICO....hale VANTAGE!!

[bdhu2001]

---

@racer-x wrote:

FICO actually does represent something, whereas the FAKO acronym doesn't represent anything....but then again, it could still be a FICO in this context - "Fake Isaac Corporation', it's still 'FICO':

Let's say this instead:  If it's a fico score, then it's a fico score.  If it's not a fico score, this it's not a fico score.

As mentioned, FAKO tends to insuate irrelevance, illegitimacy.

Death to FICO....hale VANTAGE!!

---

I think it's more accurate to state that the OP is asking the question on a FICO forum.  

Until FICO is only 50% or less of credit decisions, everything else is going to be considered FAKO.  FAKO because the probability of the lender you contact using the Credit Karma or Vantage score  is less than 6%. It's not statistically insignificant, but it's close.

All of these sites are better than just shooting in the dark, but now that I don't see the alerts and CBA reporting dates on Credit Karma, it holds even less significance.

[nyancat]

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

---

@racer-x wrote:

FICO actually does represent something, whereas the FAKO acronym doesn't represent anything....but then again, it could still be a FICO in this context - "Fake Isaac Corporation', it's still 'FICO':

Let's say this instead:  If it's a fico score, then it's a fico score.  If it's not a fico score, this it's not a fico score.

As mentioned, FAKO tends to insuate irrelevance, illegitimacy.

Death to FICO....hale VANTAGE!!

---

I think it's more accurate to state that the OP is asking the question on a FICO forum.  

Until FICO is only 50% or less of credit decisions, everything else is going to be considered FAKO.  FAKO because the probability of the lender you contact using the Credit Karma or Vantage score  is less than 6%. It's not statistically insignificant, but it's close.

All of these sites are better than just shooting in the dark, but now that I don't see the alerts and CBA reporting dates on Credit Karma, it holds even less significance.

---

Less than 50% marketshare makes something fake? Wow. So, you're telling me that Target is just fake Walmart? Pepsi is just fake Coke?