topic Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code? in Understanding FICO® Scoring

Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:18:18 GMT

What is the least number of accounts with balances that you've had and still received the "too many accounts with balances" negative reason statement?

Also, since percentage may play a role in this, listing your total number of accounts may be useful.

I currently have 4 of 10 accounts with balances, 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans (mortgage, auto) and receive the reason code referenced. One of the revolvers is awaiting a $0 balance to report and one of my installment loans (auto) should be reporting as closed/PIF. I should be at 3 of 10 accounts with balances first, then 2 of 9. I'm curious if at 3 of 10 the statement goes away. I'd certainly believe it would be gone at 2 of 9, as with 1 revolver with a reported balance and 1 open installment loan things are ideal FICO wise.

Anyway, data points on this negative reason statement are welcomed!

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

HeavenOhio — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:50:36 GMT

I have six cards and a gas/electric bill reporting. I get the reason code on many of my scores when one card reports a positive balance.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:17 GMT

See, that's interesting. We all know that FICO is a fan of a revolving balance being reported and that if you didn't have a revolver with a reported balance you'd get the "no revolving credit use" code, which definitely imposes a score hit.

I guess the question here, then, is if 1 is too many and 0 is too few, what is FICO after?

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Thomas_Thumb — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 22:08:44 GMT

@Anonymouswrote:
What is the least number of accounts with balances that you've had and still received the "too many accounts with balances" negative reason statement?

Also, since percentage may play a role in this, listing your total number of accounts may be useful.

I currently have 4 of 10 accounts with balances, 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans (mortgage, auto) and receive the reason code referenced. One of the revolvers is awaiting a $0 balance to report and one of my installment loans (auto) should be reporting as closed/PIF. I should be at 3 of 10 accounts with balances first, then 2 of 9. I'm curious if at 3 of 10 the statement goes away. I'd certainly believe it would be gone at 2 of 9, as with 1 revolver with a reported balance and 1 open installment loan things are ideal FICO wise.

Anyway, data points on this negative reason statement are welcomed!

I have a total of seven open accounts including a mortgage and AU card. I recall receiving that code with a total of 4 accounts (including mortgage and AU card) with balances on my Fico 8 bankcard summary from Citi. I have been under the impression that more than 3 accounts with balances likely trigger that this particular statement. I was down to 3 with balances once and my EQ bankcard score spiked to 892. However, I didnot look at my Citi Fico reason statements at that time and Citi doesnot archive historical reason statements.

Look forward to your updates.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:33:15 GMT

While my upcoming data points may be useful to some, the one provided by HO above almost makes others irrelevant to a degree, as if just 1 account with a balance can generate that reason statement, certainly any number greater than 1 (2, 3, etc.) would have the potential to do the same.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Thomas_Thumb — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:25:36 GMT

I would say it makes other profile data points more important, certainly not less.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:38:32 GMT

How so, as it essentially means that any non-zero number of accounts with balances can generate that statement?

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Thomas_Thumb — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 02:51:04 GMT

Essentially you have one data point from one profile on a TBD scorecard and I would not draw any generalized conclusions as such. It is critical to get data from multiple sources to determine if generalizations can be applied or if the data represents an outlier. One data point means very little as it lacks substantiation from multiple sources.

If you get multiple posters stating they receive such a statement with one account only reporting a balance, then you have substantiation. Furthermore, if other data points contradict the initial finding then results are either conditional by scorecard/profile or # accounts reporting used for the reason statement somehow differs from the report summary. Assuming the difference in results is conditional, what is the criteria for differentiation?

If everyone can be tagged with "too many accounts with balances" while having only one account reporting a balance, the reason statement truely has no value and would not have been created - IMO. So, I'm most interested in finding out if the statement disappears for someone that has it and if so under what condition.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:23:37 GMT

I gotcha. So, perhaps HO is an outlier example. HO, if you have time can you provide some of your profile data to go along with the data point of receiving the "too many accounts with balances" reason statement with just 1 account with a balance? As TT suggests, it could be something scorecard or profile specific here that you have going on.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

NRB525 — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 04:33:17 GMT

TT’s cautions are important.

I will add that trying to read ANY meaning into any particular FICO Reason Code MUST include the other Reason Codes the cardholder is presented with. The reason being, they have to tag you with something, anything. Often the codes are seeming random, fillers. “Too Many Balances” when someone has one balance, seems quite likely to be one of those meaningless fillers.

When I bother to check my TU reasons as they evolve, there is a consistent shifting of their rank as things like size of balances, number of reporting cards, individual balances, apps and such move up and down. I suggest anyone wanting to understand their reason codes needs to take time to watch the list change before drawing any conclusions.

So, BBS, and everyone else presenting “Too Many Balances” please also list out your other Reason Codes. If all those codes are softball, the “Too Many Balances” is filler.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:02:15 GMT

My 4 are:

1 - Time since most recent account opening is too short

2 - Length of time revolving accounts have been established

3 - Too many inquiries in the last 12 months

4 - Too many accounts with balances

I know that the first 3 can have an adverse impact on my score (specific to my profile) but I don't believe the "too many account with balances" is impacting my score at all. Even though I'm at 4 of 10 accounts now, I've been at 3 of 10 before and as I stated in the original post will be at 2 of 9 in about a week once a few things update on my report. I suppose then that a negative reason statement can exist without having any adverse impact to score.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Thomas_Thumb — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:29:17 GMT

My EQ Fico 8 bankcard score went from 886 to 892 dropping from 4 of 7 (loan, AU card and two personal cards) reporting balances to 3 of 7 (loan, AU card and one personal card) reporting balances. The too many accounts with balances was listed as the #1 reason statement when 4 accounts were reporting. [Citi only lists 2 reason statements on their Fico summary] Did not check reason statements when # accounts reporting dropped to 3.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:34:46 GMT

TT, do you think, though, that the percentage of accounts with balances could have played a role in your case, as going from 4 of 7 to 3 of 7 crossed the 50% mark on number of accounts with balances?

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Thomas_Thumb — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:27:55 GMT

That's certainly possible. Also, since Fico 8 does not count my AU card, my accounts may really have been scored based on (3 of 6) and (2 of 6) vs (4 of 7) and (3 of 7).

As mentioned in other posts I lost quite a few points on industry enhanced Fico 8 models due to "no recent revolving account activity" even though the AU revolver and an AMEX charge card reported balances. I did not lose points on the older Fico 04 and Fico 98 models. As we know, the older Fico models always count AU cards.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:47:50 GMT

Understood.

Wells Fargo is giving me a hard time regarding an off-cycle reporting of my recently closed auto loan, so I'm probably about 2 weeks away here from being able to provide a meaningful data point. I will report back, though.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

HeavenOhio — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:01:58 GMT

@Anonymouswrote:
I gotcha. So, perhaps HO is an outlier example. HO, if you have time can you provide some of your profile data to go along with the data point of receiving the "too many accounts with balances" reason statement with just 1 account with a balance? As TT suggests, it could be something scorecard or profile specific here that you have going on.

6 open credit card accounts

2 closed credit card accounts

1 open gas/electric account reporting to two bureaus (TU and EX)

1 closed gas/electric account reporting to one bureau (TU)

No loans, either open or closed

Of the credit cards, three are 14 to 16 years old. The rest, including the two closed cards, are between 1 and 1.5 years old. The gas/electric accounts are both a little under 4 years old.

The gas/electric accounts always report positive balances. However, I see the reason on at least one score on all three bureaus, including the bureau that doesn't include either utility account.

This isn't the strangest thing that I see with my scores. The one that makes me scratch my head is that my EQ mortgage score goes up a point when I let a second card report a positive balance. I've watched that score zig-zag like that for about six months. The EQ FICO8 goes down about four points, which makes sense.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

NRB525 — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 07:24:55 GMT

@Anonymouswrote:
My 4 are:
1 - Time since most recent account opening is too short
2 - Length of time revolving accounts have been established
3 - Too many inquiries in the last 12 months
4 - Too many accounts with balances

I know that the first 3 can have an adverse impact on my score (specific to my profile) but I don't believe the "too many account with balances" is impacting my score at all. Even though I'm at 4 of 10 accounts now, I've been at 3 of 10 before and as I stated in the original post will be at 2 of 9 in about a week once a few things update on my report. I suppose then that a negative reason statement can exist without having any adverse impact to score.

Good. The first three are a variation on the theme that you have new accounts. I suspect you will have a hard time shaking the “Too Many Accounts” reason because your balances are already low.

An interesting change would be to let a small limit card report 30% and see where a utilization Reason code lands in here.

Another is if you stop apping for a full 12 months, see if some of the other three drop, and what replaces them.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 07:56:31 GMT

@NRB525
Good. The first three are a variation on the theme that you have new accounts. I suspect you will have a hard time shaking the “Too Many Accounts” reason because your balances are already low.

An interesting change would be to let a small limit card report 30% and see where a utilization Reason code lands in here.
Another is if you stop apping for a full 12 months, see if some of the other three drop, and what replaces them.

In 6 weeks my AoYA will cross the 1 year mark and my inquiries will become unscoreable, so I hope to see all of the first 3 reason statements go away. I also hope for my first shot at a 850 score

As far as utilization, my 2 revolvers with reported balances are at 26% and 7% (aggregate 4%). That data can be paired with my reason statements referenced above. My 7% util revolver will be reporting $0 by this time next week, leaving me with the one card at 26% reported (aggregate 2%). Then, the following week, my 26% utilization card will be reporting a balance likely in the 56%-61% utilization range as far as I can tell; it will definitely fall somewhere in that 48.9%-68.9% range. Aggregate utilization will be 5% when that happens. I've never rocked AZEO with the AZEO card being at 50%+ utilization, so this will be interesting for me. I am curious if I do get any different reason statements here and definitely if the too many accounts with balances goes away with just 1 revolver and 1 installment loan (2 of 8 accounts) with balances reported.

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

NRB525 — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:13:31 GMT

Ok, that changes the discussion yet again. You will probably continue to see “Too Many Accounts With Balances”, because nothing else aside from maybe a high balance note, is likely after those new accounts age a year. You won’t have enough other Reasons to push this one off.

Your original question should be: For anyone over 800, approaching 850, did you ever get away from the “Too Many Accounts With Balances” message while any messages were displayed? At 850 I believe all Reason Codes drop.

Others below 800 are going to be more likely to get other Reason Codes that will crowd out “Too Many Accounts”. They are not in your score class, not comparable.

Congrats on getting so so close to 850

Re: Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:12:23 GMT

Thanks. I'm not there yet, though... we'll see what happens in May.

TT, curious with you and your 850 scores - Did you ever have a negative reason statement with an 850 score? I figure they could still in theory exist, because due to the > 850 buffer, someone in theory could still possess an 850 score with 1 inquiry from the last year present (for example) so I would think a "too many inquiries" reason code could still be generated. I'm just wondering if at 850 it is ommitted or not?