I think pizzadude figured it out on page 1. You are getting penalized because your total utilization is well below 1%.
EX:694 TU:744 EQ:777
@DaveSignal wrote:I think pizzadude figured it out on page 1. You are getting penalized because your total utilization is well below 1%.
Don't know, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence suggests that any non-zero number is non-zero = 1% for calculation purposes.
That said, we've always reports of 1% not being as good as potentially 5-6% or whatever for an individual's report, everyone has a sweet spot in that 1-9% range and it may vary over time.
The OP still has a wonky message, but that's coming directly from the bureau's data: FWIW, if it's from the reference source, it is by definition correct... and the reasons are just statements as to why one's score isn't better (entirely possible another tradeline got excluded from calculation or something to that effect on the presumed 6 month rule) or some other change happend on the report: without a detailed analysis between before and after reports it's hard to suggest what the rationale was.
@azguy13 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@DaveSignal wrote:I think pizzadude figured it out on page 1. You are getting penalized because your total utilization is well below 1%.
Don't know, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence suggests that any non-zero number is non-zero = 1% for calculation purposes.
That said, we've always reports of 1% not being as good as potentially 5-6% or whatever for an individual's report, everyone has a sweet spot in that 1-9% range and it may vary over time.
The OP still has a wonky message, but that's coming directly from the bureau's data: FWIW, if it's from the reference source, it is by definition correct... and the reasons are just statements as to why one's score isn't better (entirely possible another tradeline got excluded from calculation or something to that effect on the presumed 6 month rule) or some other change happend on the report: without a detailed analysis between before and after reports it's hard to suggest what the rationale was.
Could any disputed accounts not being calculated into the overall score be an explanation for the "erronious" statement?
Disputed accounts do all sorts of things strange to a score as often they exclude the tradeline in it's entirety; usually people don't dispute positive tradelines (balance not updated or not reporting a paid loan as $0 are the only common two AFAIK) and as such they usually inflate the score. If I had to guess, any tradeline in a disputed state would be discounted on the provided reasons as well, so if one disputed a lengthy tradeline it could look like a "short" history if the consumer only had 2 recently opened accounts otherwise as an example.
Don't think this is what occurred here, my question after reviewing the thread and what not is what the reported utilization was on the last pull, and if there's a non-trivial change to fix that for next month and see if the score improves. When one gets into the high scoring brackets even incredibly minor things can whack your score fairly hard, and this is one such silly instance. Alternatively if he hit a non-trivial anniversary or similar event which might cause a rebucketing that might do it, but from the tradeline list it sounds like the OP has a pretty static report.
I agree that having $0 across the board shouldn't be a problem, but I think it's a historical artifact in the model when payments weren't reported... as payments being reported is a recent change from the last 2ish years. If payments aren't $0 then it's pretty safe to assume the tradeline isn't inactive; however, I don't know if all lenders are reporting yet... most likely it's a change in the software interface from Experian / Equifax / Transunion and code doesn't get updated as often as it should in such cases (if it's working don't touch it mentality). It's one of those idiosyncracies that everyone on this forum should be aware of, so just play the silly reindeer FICO games when one needs to put lipstick on the pig for an application, and go on with life.