Does Experian Fico Punish Baddies More Than TU?

[jbh]

As I noticed from checking up on Experian, when a baddie was deleted, it meant that the file from # of accounts, inq's (different dates, but equal # in last month) and balances as well as = baddies was identical to Transunion

Yet TU was 25 points higher. I once read that Experian views a baddie as recent even if it's 2+ years. Not sure if that is true (Somebody suggested that date of last activity/report date is calculated). It seems absurd. However, why else would TU be higher up?

Have YOU noticed this, that Experian is far less forgiving? (For those with collections on their reports)

[Anonymous]

Each CRA does their own calculations for scores. For me TU has 1 baddie not reporting on the other 2 CRAs.   All my other accounts are reporting on all 3 CRAs. EX is my highest score, or use to be. I haven't pulled any scores for awhile  BUT I have SW with MYFICO so I always know what my EQ score is.

Message Edited by HappyDays on 11-02-2008 01:07 AM

[jbh]

Right, and I am wondering if Experian is known to punish them more since they are all unique. I've always believed that as well as Equifax punishing for new accounts. (just a weird thought)

I guess, since as you say they calculate differently maybe EXP is punishing newer accounts more/etc. I just cannot believe how 2 can have identical reports and still be off that much.

[marty56]

EQ really smacks me overy my 120 day late that shows up on all 3 reports.  You can see my score differences.  since my util is usually 1% or 0% and I dont apply for credit very often, my scores have been very stable for awhile.  You can see how the 120 day late dominates my score.

[CreditAble]

---

@jbh wrote:

Right, and I am wondering if Experian is known to punish them more since they are all unique. I've always believed that as well as Equifax punishing for new accounts. (just a weird thought)

I guess, since as you say they calculate differently maybe EXP is punishing newer accounts more/etc. I just cannot believe how 2 can have identical reports and still be off that much.

---

 When Vantage score first came out the bureaus were trying hard to make a case that the scores would be more "uniform than FICO scores" across all bureaus. We know that Fico (and Vantage) would be different if the data was different. FICO can still vary even if the data was absolutely identical. The Vantage score people were claiming that the Vantage scores would be identical  in cases of identical data.

 How could they make that claim? The observation was that different bureaus considered some tradelines differently for scoring purpose when using a FICO scoring model. Supposedly the Vantage score unified the way all bureaus considered all credit file entries....even if the entry wasn't actually a tradeline. 

 An example could be the treatment of a collection account for scoring purposes. One bureau could treat "the baddie" as an actual (negative) tradeline. Another bureau could treat the same account as something else since the consumer never actually applied for it (as a tradeline).

 When an old baddie which was considered a tradeline falls of one report, the resulting score impact could actually be negative (lower average age could come to mind).  On another bureau's report, the same entry might not be considered a tradeline at all, thus the score could go up.

 Vantage was supposed to address the problem by providing uniform scoring across all bureaus. Unfortunately the only thing uniform about Vantage scoring is that it is equally useless for all credit bureaus.

 Understanding that not all baddies are treated identically by the bureaus themselves, puts the blame where it actually belongs. If is not Fair Isaac's fault that the bureaus are not uniformly treating all entries alike. The fact is the bureaus have the ability to provide uniform treatment of all entries. They just don't choose to do so. They only actually do so when attempting to sell their own useless proprietary scores.

 Different treatment of baddies ( as well as other entries) has always been practiced by the bureaus. That in the past was possibly as result of different approaches to credit reporting. The practice will probably persist indefinitely now that the bureaus are attempting to use it as a weapon against Fair Isaacs dominance in the market place. 

[jbh]

Creditable>>Great post, thank you very much

Marty>>Sorry to hear that. It is, however, interesting to see that EQ is more punishing. Some other posters have said the same thing. Maybe EXP just doesn't like my utility per account or new accounts as much

That said, it makes me wonder what jump I will have if/when my EQ last baddie falls off. (680+ when utility drops while including my last collection)

Hrm...gives me something to look forward to I guess.

Thanks, guys.

Actually, one other ca fell off Experian today. I now only have 2. I am curious to see if it would cause a jump, as nothing really has updated since the last time I posted in this thread.

RESULTS:

0 point gain! Yep...0 points for a collection falling off as I still have one more. So it seems EXP only cares if you remove ALL of them. Wow.

Message Edited by jbh on 11-05-2008 06:03 PM

Message Edited by jbh on 11-05-2008 06:03 PM

[Junejer]

Reason being, is that the one that fell off (I presume due to age) wasn't being factored in the scoring anyway.

[marty56]

---

@jbh wrote:

Marty>>Sorry to hear that. It is, however, interesting to see that EQ is more punishing. Some other posters have said the same thing. Maybe EXP just doesn't like my utility per account or new accounts as much

---

EX hates new accounts for me.  Also I think it more sensitive to util while EQ is more sensitive to # cards.  Interesting think is my TU doesn't seem to care about 0% util and 2 cards reporting but I'm not going to test them on it. 

[jbh]

The more I think about it, Marty, the more I have to agree that EXP is more critical of UTIL, esp. *individual* utility.