No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
I will tell you my experience with the Secured Share Loan.. Unfortunately I didnt get it through Alliant.. but it pushed my score that was stagnating in the 720s... into the high 740s and peaking at 750..... Right now with some usage and balances im at 744 according to Discover.......I don't have nearly as thick of a credit history or AAoA as you... but I think it might bring you close to your goal...For me it seemed to help recover my score a bit from an extra app... Without it, I think i could have only apped for one card instead of two....
-J
I am going to play around with three $10 balances and see if ups my score.
I am holding back on the secure loan for now, becasuse want to see what happens with the smaill balances. I will keep you guys and gals updated as it posts to my report.
I use experian credit tracker to check my score every other day or so.
I don't know about everyone else...
But..to me
802 has a nice ring to it...
Eight-Anything has a nice ring to it.
Reminder to all that any score above 760/780 or so is just as good as a perfect 850 in terms of benefits of receiving the best interest rates, revolvers, etc. Once past 760/780 it's really all for "fluff" which fine; having the extra padding is always a good feeling but it's important to know that the extra points aren't buying you anything.
What evidence is there that addresses are counted at all in the FICO algorithm?
I have airstruck numerous broken addresses and names (if you move around, this'll happen, pretty common to be sure) but it made zero difference to my score. Enough people do that I'd think we'd have more anecdotal data on that?
I'd still absolutely recommend nuking them though as those broken addresses will break verification checks potentially if you're unaware of it, and also on the proctological exam named mortgage underwriting you may get to explain every single one... and that's not any fun. Simple dispute to get them off anyway, but I at least haven't seen anything that suggests it's being used.
Would be happy to be shown otherwise though, just with how broken that data is (lenders report junk all the time, not sure how in this day and age and some bureaus namely EQ make it even worse in my experience) and it's not nearly as well maintained as the tradeline data. Ergo, it's really doubtful it's used: bad data in = bad data out.
I love reading all this detail....
Not that I understand it....
I just think that 800+ is cool..
I don't want to get into a fight either frankly but some things bear mentioning.
A perfect score does not mean you have a perfect profile, it means you maxxed out the scorecard. Think of it like an exam with extra credit: 110 possible points, but the max score is a 100. It actually isn't a fantastic testing point as we're able to see much more discrete changes sub 850... but much more concerning is your assertion regarding non-850's: throwing out everyone elses data points is worse than ignorant.
End of the day it doesn't matter matter, I fully subscribe to deleting broken addresses since they cause nothing but trouble, but going from there to suggest they have any impact on FICO is a stretch. A lot of people clean up broken addresses actually and a lot of people track their scores here, you'd think with the amount of information that gets posted here somebody would've seen a difference? Just doesn't seem statistically likely.
@Anonymous wrote:
You can gain some weight believe it or not by making sure all your personal identification info is spotless and exactly prefect
Meaning that as mentioned the scoring model is a risk based model
Things that are no biggie, in general can keep profiles from getting every drop of each vetted piece of data
Ex: There is a value on
I.D.
Address
Etc
So little crap like a file that contains
James, Jim, Jimmy and Jimbo
Is scored high probability as James Smith but not at a 100% mark perhaps 95%, not alarming but points left on the table
Is it Jr. or Sr. or is it possibly the other guy who really is Jim
Same with addresses... does your profile list ONE perfect address or a few choices
What about socials?
Many times due to our error or an error by the person inputting data, you'll see VARIATIONS
Variations, prevent the model from given the perfect amount of points for every nitpicking area the RISK model combs for, at times simply crap like that can easily add or subtract 10-20 points.
Fico doesn't quite share it, in those terms but by the nature of some folks address or name they'd NEVER qualify as a 850... because that would indicate all is perfect and some addresses would have a hard time meeting the standard, others move to often to vet there exact address to a zero degree of risk.
850 is a bit more than just perfect payments, there are things beyond our give-crap that the risk model may score slightly down but, no big deal for the real world...
Thus us one reason why, the best rate breaks are in the upper 700s and not the 800s
Because in real life, we know Richard and Dick are the same dude but the computer has to see them as possible a different dude😃
Once again, this is complete nonsense.
FICO scoring does not, in any way, base any scoring factor on your address(es), name(s), or any "possible" variations on those. Unless a tradeline from someone with a similiar name/address ACTUALLY APPEARS ON THE REPORT, it does not factor in. At all. (And if it does appear on your report, follow the dispute process to remove it. Then it stops factoring in.) The mere "possiblity" of a confusable name is not a factor.
It is absolutely possible to hit 850 on FICO 8 (or, indeed, go "over" and be capped by the model down to 850) with AKAs/alternate names, "Jr/Sr/etc", and alternate addresses (at which live the other half of the "Jr/Sr/etc"). I'm quite sure of this... as I've seen it personally.
Your random unsupported assertions that there are hidden, magic scoring factors is not borne out by either offical data from FICO, or from actual demonstrated data from real people. I'm not sure why you seem to think this... but you are quite incorrect.