topic Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4 in Understanding FICO® Scoring

FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:00:41 GMT

Bizarrely, when I added a revolving account balance which brought my aggregate revolving utilization up from rounded 5% to rounded 6%, and increased number of accounts with balances from 9/34 to 10/34, my EX FICO 2 went up 6 points instead of down.

My FICO 8, predictably, dropped 4 points.

Scratching my head to figure out the reason for this oddity.

Negative reason code "not using revolving credit" had dropped out, but that doesn't explain this for me.

Update 8:58 a.m.

I was able to immediately eliminate any aging factors, since the change was mid-month.

So my only remaining suspect was the aging off of scoreable inquiries. But I just pored over the inquiries and there were no February 2018 inquiries.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:22:46 GMT

@SouthJamaica wrote:

Negative reason code "not using revolving credit" had dropped out, but that doesn't explain this for me.

I'm confused as to how the "not using revolving credit" reason code could be present if you were already at 9 accounts with balances reported?

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:07:13 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:

Negative reason code "not using revolving credit" had dropped out, but that doesn't explain this for me.

I'm confused as to how the "not using revolving credit" reason code could be present if you were already at 9 accounts with balances reported?

Me too. But there it was. It was only showing in FICO 2. I posted about that the other day, how the negative reason code "high credit usage" had flipped to "not using revolving credit" when I went from rounded 8% to rounded 6%

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:27:06 GMT

Does 7% eliminate both reason codes?

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there. A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Revelate — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:38:37 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Does 7% eliminate both reason codes?

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there. A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

Tradelines can be discounted, vis a vis my 43500 CSR with balance also leads to no revolving, and as soon as I have any other revolver report I'm likely going to get the points I lost back.

SJ: when you post these specifically for FICO 8 could you also break out revolvers with balances vs. open installment loans? Agreed that FICO 2 is on number of accounts, but I'm not so sure on that one with FICO 8.

Also what all those accounts actually are? That no-revolving usage is suspect but depends on the details of the file.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:22:59 GMT

I'm sure SJ will weigh in with the specifics regarding his accounts with balances, but if I recall correctly the majority if not all of them are revolvers and I'd find it extremely hard to believe (next to impossible) that all of them were being "ignored" by the algorithm for reasons like AU accounts, extremely high credit limits, etc.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:42:57 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Does 7% eliminate both reason codes?

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there. A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

1. So you think 7% might be that elusive middle ground I'm looking for?

2. I also take issue with "no revolving credit use". I would even take issue with "minimal"; I don't think 30k is minimal

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:49:37 GMT

@Revelate wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Does 7% eliminate both reason codes?

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there. A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.
Tradelines can be discounted, vis a vis my 43500 CSR with balance also leads to no revolving, and as soon as I have any other revolver report I'm likely going to get the points I lost back.

SJ: when you post these specifically for FICO 8 could you also break out revolvers with balances vs. open installment loans? Agreed that FICO 2 is on number of accounts, but I'm not so sure on that one with FICO 8.

Also what all those accounts actually are? That no-revolving usage is suspect but depends on the details of the file.

I do actually have a 43,500 credit line; but EX counted it in number of accounts and included the balance I had on it.

All of my open accounts are revolving accounts except for my little reindeer games SSL.

Of the 9 revolving accounts reporting, 2 are PLOC's, 7 are credit cards.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:50:38 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure SJ will weigh in with the specifics regarding his accounts with balances, but if I recall correctly the majority if not all of them are revolvers and I'd find it extremely hard to believe (next to impossible) that all of them were being "ignored" by the algorithm for reasons like AU accounts, extremely high credit limits, etc.

Yeah. In my dreams would someone make me an authorized user.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:45:09 GMT

@SouthJamaica wrote:
Of the 9 revolving accounts reporting, 2 are PLOC's, 7 are credit cards.

And of the credit cards that have been reporting a positive balance during the last several months, there has always been at least one with a fairly low credit limit, and which was a card in your name, and which was a true credit card (not a charge card), etc. Correct?

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:58:17 GMT

@SouthJamaica wrote:
2. I also take issue with "no revolving credit use". I would even take issue with "minimal"; I don't think 30k is minimal

Agreed 100% in terms of dollars, but if we're considering percentage I suppose that could be considered minimal.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:45:57 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
Of the 9 revolving accounts reporting, 2 are PLOC's, 7 are credit cards.
And of the credit cards that have been reporting a positive balance during the last several months, there has always been at least one with a fairly low credit limit, and which was a card in your name, and which was a true credit card (not a charge card), etc. Correct?

Not sure I understand your question.

I don't have anything that's not in my name.

I haven't had a personal charge card until a few months ago, but that hasn't reported a balance.

Everything has been a credit card in my name or a PLOC in my name.

None of those reporting a balance have especially low credit limits. The lowest would be 10k.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:53:17 GMT

I'm sure CGID will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe he was getting at was not so much that at least one of the revolvers you have a reported balance on has a relatively low limit, but rather not an extraordinarily (say, $35k+) high limit. I believe he's looking to rule out the possibilities here as far as revolving accounts being "ignored" by the FICO algorithm.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 04:46:50 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure CGID will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe he was getting at was not so much that at least one of the revolvers you have a reported balance on has a relatively low limit, but rather not an extraordinarily (say, $35k+) high limit. I believe he's looking to rule out the possibilities here as far as revolving accounts being "ignored" by the FICO algorithm.

Well, as I mentioned above, one of them is a 43,500 account. Also, one of them is a 40k account. But EX seems to be counting them.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:30:44 GMT

@SouthJamaica wrote:
Bizarrely, when I added a revolving account balance which brought my aggregate revolving utilization up from rounded 5% to rounded 6%, and increased number of accounts with balances from 9/34 to 10/34, my EX FICO 2 went up 6 points instead of down.

If this was Reddit, I would tag your username with 'Most interesting credit file in the world.' lol

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:38:48 GMT

@SouthJamaica wrote:
Well, as I mentioned above, one of them is a 43,500 account. Also, one of them is a 40k account. But EX seems to be counting them.

Right, but aren't some of them [relatively] smaller limits, say $20k or so that there would be no chance of them being excluded by the algorithm?

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:34:14 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
Well, as I mentioned above, one of them is a 43,500 account. Also, one of them is a 40k account. But EX seems to be counting them.
Right, but aren't some of them [relatively] smaller limits, say $20k or so that there would be no chance of them being excluded by the algorithm?

Yes they're all listed in my signature, in size place. The reporting accounts range from 4500 to 43,500. I don't think any of my accounts are excluded, as near as I can tell.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Apr 2019 01:13:26 GMT

OK,

1. EX2 is ignoring all TLs over $35,000

2. EX2 is ignoring all CU TLs SJ, All those quirks at weird percentages....You can attribute them partly to CU TLs, I think....Least as far as EX2.

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

Thomas_Thumb — Fri, 12 Apr 2019 22:04:14 GMT

@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure CGID will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe he was getting at was not so much that at least one of the revolvers you have a reported balance on has a relatively low limit, but rather not an extraordinarily (say, $35k+) high limit. I believe he's looking to rule out the possibilities here as far as revolving accounts being "ignored" by the FICO algorithm.
Well, as I mentioned above, one of them is a 43,500 account. Also, one of them is a 40k account. But EX seems to be counting them.

Unfortunately, whether or not EX is counting them in their report summary has no bearing on what Fico does inside its algorithm. The CRAs don't control the algorithms.

Almost certainly CCs at $35k and above are ignored in Fico 98 (score 2) but not Fico 8. I can't personally speak to PLOCs but, perhaps they are also ignored in Fico 98 but not Fico 8. If you remove charge cards, credit cards at $35k or more, PLOCs and business CCs did you have other revolving CCs still reporting balances?

Also, you seem to be a credit union junkie. If you take away the above and have some CC accounts remaining with balances, are all the remaining CCs through credit unions? If so, perhaps these accounts are somehow coded in a manner that Fico 98 excludes in its algorithm.

The reason to drill down on this as much as possible is the "not using revolving credit" statement on EX Fico 98 (score 2).

Re: FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

SouthJamaica — Sat, 13 Apr 2019 03:19:16 GMT

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure CGID will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe he was getting at was not so much that at least one of the revolvers you have a reported balance on has a relatively low limit, but rather not an extraordinarily (say, $35k+) high limit. I believe he's looking to rule out the possibilities here as far as revolving accounts being "ignored" by the FICO algorithm.
Well, as I mentioned above, one of them is a 43,500 account. Also, one of them is a 40k account. But EX seems to be counting them.
Unfortunately, whether or not EX is counting them in their report summary has no bearing on what Fico does inside its algorithm. The CRAs don't control the algorithms.

Almost certainly CCs at $35k and above are ignored in Fico 98 (score 2) but not Fico 8. I can't personally speak to PLOCs but, perhaps they are also ignored in Fico 98 but not Fico 8. If you remove charge cards, credit cards at $35k or more, PLOCs and business CCs did you have other revolving CCs still reporting balances?

Also, you seem to be a credit union junkie. If you take away the above and have some CC accounts remaining with balances, are all the remaining CCs through credit unions? If so, perhaps these accounts are somehow coded in a manner that Fico 98 excludes in its algorithm.

The reason to drill down on this as much as possible is the "not using revolving credit" statement on EX Fico 98 (score 2).

Good point about training my mind to pay attention to algorithm, not the CRA's site.

1. I have 3 4 reporting accounts at 35k or above:

(a) credit union cc 43500

(b) bank cc 40000

(d) credit union cc 40000

2. I now have 1 reporting charge card, but that's recent, and it's only reported zeroes so far

3. I'm never counting the business accounts which don't report to personal.

4. Most of my bank cards are strictly for making purchases, and I just charge stuff and then pay them off before statement cut, the only exception being where there is a promotional rate of some kind that tempts me to carry a balance.

5. Most, but not all, of the balances which report are in credit union accounts.

6. I haven't found PLOC's and credit cards to be treated differently.

I'm going to start focusing more on that FICO 2 reason code "not using revolving credit", and try to sort out whether it's discounting the credit unions. Some support for that can be found in that the code was there one day when my large Chase card with 40k limit, which under your theory is not counted for this purpose, was the only non-credit union account reporting a balance, but then dropped out when a smaller limit Santander Bank credit card popped up reporting a balance.