AUs in FICO 08

[vanillabean]

To see if any of my AU cards are used for utilization, I let all my AUs report a balance this time around since I'm already up and running.

BACKGROUND

The revolving accounts on my credit reports include card C (individual), D (authorized user) and A (individual), whose statement cuts take place in the evening of the 24th, 26th and 28th respectively. The starting point on the 20th is one individual card reporting a balance (card A) and one authorized user card with a balance that’s not counted for utilization (card B). Card E is the third and last authorized user card. I have reports (Amex CreditSecure) for EQ, TU and EX, but scores for EQ only (myFICO Score Watch) starting at 850.

The 28th is not really the statement date for card A, but Chase reports cards with a zeroed balance at the time, which applies to card C on the 26th as well.

SCENARIO

One individual balance FICO 08 EQ 850 TU 850 EX 848
0% baseline FICO 08 EQ 844 [-6] TU 839 [-11] EX 836 [-12]

EQ date, I cards, AU cards, action, EQ score

17th 0 1 card B balance 844
20th 1 1 card A balance 850
27th 1 1 card C balance, card C zero 850
29th 0 2 card D balance, card A zero 844

8th score alert for no reason 846

11th 0 3 card E balance 846

On the December 17th with one AU card reporting, EQ lists no change from the baseline score of 844.

On the December 28th with the second AU card reporting, EX lists no change from the baseline score of 836. On December 29th, EQ likewise had no change from 844.

On the January 11th with the third and last AU card reporting, EQ lists no change from the baseline score of 846.

CONCLUSION

None of my AU cards are used for utilization.

[Revelate]

I think you mean for utilization rather than AAOA?

Anyway interesting to see how this pans out, thank you for being willing to run this!  Hopefully the 850 doesn't skew it past irrelevancy but looks like the small score drop (which appears to be another proof of buffer above 850 if there ever was one... hell even my file I drop 12 points for all revolvers at zero) does appear that A isn't counting as an AU on your file.

Thanks again senor!

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

I think you mean for utilization rather than AAOA?

Anyway interesting to see how this pans out, thank you for being willing to run this!  Hopefully the 850 doesn't skew it past irrelevancy but looks like the small score drop (which appears to be another proof of buffer above 850 if there ever was one... hell even my file I drop 12 points for all revolvers at zero) does appear that A isn't counting as an AU on your file.

Thanks again senor!

---

One can always look at enhanced scores. Yes, Enhanced versions of the same base Fico algorithm do react like their Classic counterparts. I have observed this with both Fico 04 and Fico 98. I expect the same is true with Fico 08 & 09 as well - but my classic 850 prevents me from confirming.

What I (can do)/(have done) with Fico 08 & 09 Enhanced versions is document how these scores change while the Classic score remains at 850. The data is useful in guestimating Classic Fico 08 & 09 buffers. The maximum potential buffers are likely somewhat higher since the Classic score held.

The below was presented previously but has been updated to add 10/30/16 3B data which showed movement on Classic TU Fico 08. It looks like my profile had about 20 points buffer on Classic TU Fico 08 between "best" report state and the recent score drop state.

[vanillabean]

---

@Revelate wrote:
 

I think you mean for utilization rather than AAOA?

---

Yes. So glad Edit Message is offered.

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

One can always look at enhanced scores.

---

 Here’s how mine compare.

One individual balance vs one authorized user balance:

EQ:
-FICO Score 8: 850 vs 844
-FICO Auto Score 8: 880 vs 864
-FICO Bankcard Score 8: 879 vs 866
-FICO Score 9: 848 vs 830
-FICO Auto Score 9: 872 vs 853
-FICO Bankcard Score 9: 858 vs 837

EX:
-FICO Score 8: 848 vs 836
-FICO Auto Score 8: 883 vs 862
-FICO Bankcard Score 8: 883 vs 878
-FICO Score 9: 838 vs 819
-FICO Auto Score 9: 858 vs 836
-FICO Bankcard Score 9: 849 vs 831

Added: 0% baseline FICO 08 EQ 844 [-6] TU 839 [-11] EX 836 [-12]

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous-own-fico wrote:

---

@Revelate wrote:
 

I think you mean for utilization rather than AAOA?

---

Yes. So glad Edit Message is offered.

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

One can always look at enhanced scores.

---

 Here’s how mine compare.

One individual balance vs one authorized user balance:

EQ:
-FICO Score 8: 850 vs 844 [-6] *** Appears that your 850 includes 7 to 10 points of buffer ***
-FICO Auto Score 8: 880 vs 864 [-16]
-FICO Bankcard Score 8: 879 vs 866 [-13]
-FICO Score 9: 848 vs 830 [-18]
-FICO Auto Score 9: 872 vs 853 [-19]
-FICO Bankcard Score 9: 858 vs 837 [-21]

EX:
-FICO Score 8: 848 vs 836 [-12] *** No buffer on EX ***
-FICO Auto Score 8: 883 vs 862 [-21]
-FICO Bankcard Score 8: 883 vs 878 [-5]
-FICO Score 9: 838 vs 819 [-19]
-FICO Auto Score 9: 858 vs 836 [-22]
-FICO Bankcard Score 9: 849 vs 831 [-18]

---

Looks like the AU card only reporting is costing you 12 to 15 points on Classic Fico 08 and 18 to 20 points on Classic Fico 09. That suggests the AU card that reported may not be treated the same as your individual card. It would be interesting to see your Fico 04 and Fico 98 scores for comparison. AU cards are always considered in those algorithms

[vanillabean]

The AU card has no impact actually; the baseline score is the same.

Just got my 12/19 BoA TU 08 score, dropped from 850 to 839 [-11].