...jesus wept 
@fittiger wrote:So today I got a notification from ScoreWatch that I had two alerts with a score change.
- Dormant Card Activity (I had an annual fee charged to one of my cards that I paid of before the statement cut.....$0 bal last month, $0 balance this month....so no change in balance).
- Balance Amount Decrease (I'm paying down a 0% interest credit card and the balance went down from $2279 to $1864).
Between the two of these changes to my credit report....and I've looked, there were no others.....my EQ score dropped 8 points!!!!
There is something wrong with the system if my score drops because I pay down a balance or a credit card gets use but doesn't change its balance. The system is rigged against the consumer. There's no way either of these events should make me a higher credit risk to anyone.
I am in the process of getting a HELOC. If this had happened before I applied and it dropped my score causing me to be in a different tier for the lender, this could cost me $1000's over the course of this loan.
Scores fluctuate - there is no rhyme or reason for it. Trying to understand each move is like trying to count how many drops of water are in the ocean. I understand that the score itself is important when you are looking for new credit, but at the end of the day, the score was never designed for consumers to understand. It was designed to quantify risk by the lenders. I found that focusing on the "big picture" - what makes up the FICO score - is giving me a lot more peace and quiet than worry about the daily fluctuations.
I have a membership here to the alerts and scores only for the purposes of identity theft (possible new accounts being opened without my permission, or balance reporting errors). The rest, I try not to worry too much. There isn't a thing I can do to change my short credit history, or the number of inquiries that are there right now. Any change can impact the score - and how much that score is impacted noone can really tell you. There are countless factors that play a role in the mathematical calculations which spit out the final score. If it was simply adding the 5 factors (Payment History, Amounts Owed, Length of History, New Credit and Type of Credit) noone would need to pay for the score. We can do that ourselves by a simple weighted average.
@Anonymous wrote:FICO score is:
35% Payment history
15& length of credit history
10% new credit
10% type of credit
30% amounts owed.
If everything is exactly the same from all 3 of my CRA( Eperian, Trans Uniom, and Equifax), then the scores MYFICO reports to me every month when I pay for my updates should be exactly the same.
They are not.
BECAUSE the CRA have different criteria. No standardization. There is no way there should be 20 or more point difference between all 3. No way. The info is the same on all 3
If you read carefully the explanations of the FICO model in the main published portions of MyFICO, you'll see that those percentages are averages, and that each person, depending on where they are in the amount of credit history they have, among all the factors, will have a different weighting of how the factors affect their individual score. It's not always 35% payment history as a fixed percentage, even for the same individual as their credit matures.
And, if you comb through all the details of each of the three bureaus, you are likely to find some significant items that are on one or two, but not on the other(s). That results in some differences across bureaus as far as the information they start with, and as new information comes in, combined with your own personal mix of weightings of the factors, the score adjusts a bit every week or two.
@fittiger wrote:
@NRB525.....here are the alerts for my report in the last two weeks prior to the 2 mention in my post. So please offer me any wisdom as to why I would have a drop in 8 points.
-Nov 28, 0 pts change, account update (account closed by consumer)
-Nov 27, +11pts change, account balance decrease -$1250
-Nov 24, +6pts change, 2 account updates (accounts closed by consumer)
-Nov 21, -6pts change, new account listed
I don't believe it is a simple weekly adjustment. I keep track of all changes to my report and watch how it affects my score. This particular drop has to be the dormant account activity. I understand that scores are based on data collected over many years and an algorithm to provide a risk assessment to lenders but when a point difference can mean a different rate for consumers and end up costing them thousands of dollars, then there should be some regulations that also protect the consumer. I am asserting that this point drop is based on the dormant account activity alert, it has to be. I can understand a dormant account becoming used may indicate that the consumer is starting to use more credit, BUT if there is no actual balance change and the balance is 0, then this is a fault in the system/algorithm or a malicious adverse scoring against the consumer to benefit lenders. Even if you still believe I'm spreading some sort of conspiracy theory, you have to admit that 8 points is significant for this change to my report.
Thanks for the details.
So if I reconstruct the last few weeks, not in serial order,
1 new account added (different from the dormant, correct?)
3 accounts closed (2 + 1, right?)
1 account reduced by $1,250 (what was the utilization percentage before and after on this card? Could be another potential factor)
1 account reduced by $414 (same util % change question here)
A dormant account had a small flash balance, new activity.
And at the end of the sequence your score increased by 3 points, correct? Looks to me like you are on the right track, your score is increasing. That is a lot of change to your account in a short time. And you are correct my "weekly" generalization is more intended to be "every several days", and since this is a three day gap typically, seems in line with the lumpy nature of the recalculations.
And regarding regulation, please let's not encourage our federal government to try to "fix" this. Something tells me it would not be a useful additional regulation.
@fittiger wrote:
@NRB525.....here are the alerts for my report in the last two weeks prior to the 2 mention in my post. So please offer me any wisdom as to why I would have a drop in 8 points.
-Nov 28, 0 pts change, account update (account closed by consumer)
-Nov 27, +11pts change, account balance decrease -$1250
-Nov 24, +6pts change, 2 account updates (accounts closed by consumer)
-Nov 21, -6pts change, new account listed
I don't believe it is a simple weekly adjustment. I keep track of all changes to my report and watch how it affects my score. This particular drop has to be the dormant account activity. I understand that scores are based on data collected over many years and an algorithm to provide a risk assessment to lenders but when a point difference can mean a different rate for consumers and end up costing them thousands of dollars, then there should be some regulations that also protect the consumer. I am asserting that this point drop is based on the dormant account activity alert, it has to be. I can understand a dormant account becoming used may indicate that the consumer is starting to use more credit, BUT if there is no actual balance change and the balance is 0, then this is a fault in the system/algorithm or a malicious adverse scoring against the consumer to benefit lenders. Even if you still believe I'm spreading some sort of conspiracy theory, you have to admit that 8 points is significant for this change to my report.
...you've been repeatedly offered what you asked for ...you just don't believe it
...lots of people don't believe Elvis is dead or that Armstrong walked on the moon 
@NRB525 wrote:And regarding regulation, please let's not encourage our federal government to try to "fix" this. Something tells me it would not be a useful additional regulation.
+1 amen brother 
@NRB525 wrote:
@fittiger wrote:
@NRB525.....here are the alerts for my report in the last two weeks prior to the 2 mention in my post. So please offer me any wisdom as to why I would have a drop in 8 points.
-Nov 28, 0 pts change, account update (account closed by consumer)
-Nov 27, +11pts change, account balance decrease -$1250
-Nov 24, +6pts change, 2 account updates (accounts closed by consumer)
-Nov 21, -6pts change, new account listed
I don't believe it is a simple weekly adjustment. I keep track of all changes to my report and watch how it affects my score. This particular drop has to be the dormant account activity. I understand that scores are based on data collected over many years and an algorithm to provide a risk assessment to lenders but when a point difference can mean a different rate for consumers and end up costing them thousands of dollars, then there should be some regulations that also protect the consumer. I am asserting that this point drop is based on the dormant account activity alert, it has to be. I can understand a dormant account becoming used may indicate that the consumer is starting to use more credit, BUT if there is no actual balance change and the balance is 0, then this is a fault in the system/algorithm or a malicious adverse scoring against the consumer to benefit lenders. Even if you still believe I'm spreading some sort of conspiracy theory, you have to admit that 8 points is significant for this change to my report.Thanks for the details.
So if I reconstruct the last few weeks, not in serial order,
1 new account added (different from the dormant, correct?)
3 accounts closed (2 + 1, right?)
1 account reduced by $1,250 (what was the utilization percentage before and after on this card? Could be another potential factor)
1 account reduced by $414 (same util % change question here)
A dormant account had a small flash balance, new activity.
And at the end of the sequence your score increased by 3 points, correct? Looks to me like you are on the right track, your score is increasing. That is a lot of change to your account in a short time. And you are correct my "weekly" generalization is more intended to be "every several days", and since this is a three day gap typically, seems in line with the lumpy nature of the recalculations.
And regarding regulation, please let's not encourage our federal government to try to "fix" this. Something tells me it would not be a useful additional regulation.
Because deregulation of the banking industry worked out so well? Currently, lenders have power over consumers based on FICO's algorithm, which consumers only have rights to if they pay for it or have adverse action taken against them. There's no reason consumers shouldn't have access to this data any time they like since it can so heavily affect their financial well being, especially with all the fraud and mistakes added to CR's.
To further answer your question, your assessment above is correct:
- 1 new account added with CL of $10K
- 3 accounts closed with combined credit limits of $6500
- 1 account bal reduction of $1,250, UTIL reduction on that account from 25% to 12%
- 1 account bal reduction of $414, UTIL reduction on that account from 23% to 19%
- Activity on dormant account, with no balance change noted
- Additionally, I have approximately 100K in credit limits available to me on credit cards. My overall utility due to these alerts/report changes only dropped at maximum from 14% to 12%, which should only postively affect my score.
- The only other changes to my report are 2 inquiries that passed the year mark on Nov 26 & 28, both of which should have postive affects on my score, if any.
Therefore, all negative factors that would affect my score are:
- Dormant Account activity (-8 pts)
- 1 new credit account (-6 pts)....which, based on my reports barely affected my AAoA....since on Nov 6, 2014 AAoA was 4 yrs, and on Dec 5, 2014 AAoA was 5 years
All the changes to my report/score prior to Dec 5 are accounted for and lumpy recalculations still don't explain an 8 point drop. The only logical explanation, even for a complex algorithm, for this change is the Dormant Account activity. I am pointing out this must be a flaw in the algorithm, because I seriously doubt with all of the complex inputs, activity on a dormant acount with 0 balance change and a $0 balance has produced any additional risk to lenders in the past.
@Lemmus wrote:
@fittiger wrote:
@NRB525.....here are the alerts for my report in the last two weeks prior to the 2 mention in my post. So please offer me any wisdom as to why I would have a drop in 8 points.
-Nov 28, 0 pts change, account update (account closed by consumer)
-Nov 27, +11pts change, account balance decrease -$1250
-Nov 24, +6pts change, 2 account updates (accounts closed by consumer)
-Nov 21, -6pts change, new account listed
I don't believe it is a simple weekly adjustment. I keep track of all changes to my report and watch how it affects my score. This particular drop has to be the dormant account activity. I understand that scores are based on data collected over many years and an algorithm to provide a risk assessment to lenders but when a point difference can mean a different rate for consumers and end up costing them thousands of dollars, then there should be some regulations that also protect the consumer. I am asserting that this point drop is based on the dormant account activity alert, it has to be. I can understand a dormant account becoming used may indicate that the consumer is starting to use more credit, BUT if there is no actual balance change and the balance is 0, then this is a fault in the system/algorithm or a malicious adverse scoring against the consumer to benefit lenders. Even if you still believe I'm spreading some sort of conspiracy theory, you have to admit that 8 points is significant for this change to my report....you've been repeatedly offered what you asked for ...you just don't believe it
...lots of people don't believe Elvis is dead or that Armstrong walked on the moon
I actually haven't been offerend what I asked for; lumpy recalculation and illogical algorithms are just scapegoats. The system is complex and detailed enough this particular input should be accounted for. Come on, even you don't believe that this -8 point change is logical (algorithms and programs are written on logic)?
Lots of people believe in gods and devils, I'm not using mythological or unsubstantiated details to argue my case. Whether I use the verbage "believe, assert, has to be" or not, all of my arguements and assertions are based on data and output and my original arguement still stands....this is a flaw in the system.
...these many years past I gave up arguing with those who advocate the use of government force to impose their personal views on others who have not first initiated the use of force against them ...I simply can't understand the mindset and stopped trying.
...you seem incapable of separating the proprietary algorithms (that FICO has developed with its own resources and proven to its rather large and well educated customer base that they are the best on the market) ...from the CRAs that accumulate, maintain, and sell consumer credit data ...throughout your posts you continuously mix them in ways that are objectively inaccurate ...myFico buys its report data and updates from the CRAs just like you and every other consumer of the CRA products ...it is in no way responsible for the content of the CRA data they get and analyze ...period.
...you repeatedly advocate that the government somehow force FICO (who has many market competitors) to disclose its proprietary algorithms to you, explain them to your personal satisfaction, and change them in whatever way you personally deem appropriate to your personal benefit ...good god gerty!
...why not just nationalize FICO and the CRAs and put them all under the umbrella of the NSA? ...then you can write complaint letters to your congressional representatives all day and night complaining about the national "666" score you were given ...NSA (read government) has been so responsive and cooperative with the public, its an a priori certainty that they would provide better service and transparency than you have now ...or maybe you'd prefer the IRS instead, those paragons of clarity and response to public inquiries regarding their regulations, data and/or analysis thereof?
...yea verily, neither FICO nor the CRAs are perfect in their operations or the results they provide ...but then neither am I ...or you ...be careful what you wish for doesn't result in unexpected consequences far worse than what you suffer today. FINIS
What is conveniently not mentioned is the +11 for one of the balance decrease days. That's apparently not an outlier. 
I still think +3 net after all those changes is not a bad outcome. In the quest for a HELOC or mortgage, at the end of the sequence the applicant is still improving their FICO score with positive moves to increase FICO.
And, you may yet get your wish for more regulation, since the tendency of the "more regulation" crowd is to not rest until more regulation results. Not that it is the best outcome, it is just a "result" that can be actively worked toward, whereas less regulation is a passive situation, not an action.
In all seriousness, good debate. These concerns get raised by lots of folks on this forum, and there are a lot of opinions.
Cheers!