topic Re: Litany of irrational score changes in Understanding FICO® Scoring

Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 06:22:58 GMT

I signed up with myFICO thinking I'd go right to the source of the scoring model used by creditors. But my experience in the past month or 2 has been very frustrating in terms of the seemingly irrational score changes.

Example 1: a $0 -> $90 credit card balance = 58pt drop on XP and only 10 on EQ

- trying to beef up my score to obtain a mortgage. Banker said that showing you use a card and pay it off is better than having it always have a $0 balance. So I put $90 on my card

- For this card, the % util went up to 12%

- For all cards, it was then up to about 1%

myFICO states that all 2 FICO scores are all using the same FICO 8 model, yet for this same event, there was 58pt drop on XP and only 10 on EQ.

Pics to prove it:

Image: XP 58 pt drop

Image: EQ 10 pt drop

Example 2: TU 32 pt drop...unexplained

- I get an alert. View it....32 pt drop. No explaination provided.

Image: TU 32 pt drop, no explain

Example 3: TU drop 15 pts for all bank card balance DROP to near $0

Image: TU 15 pt drop for balance decrease (On Mar 2, 2015 balance on all cards is $39)

Image: TU Baseline pic showing bank card balance 1 month prior (this establishes a baseline that on Feb 3, 2015 the balance on al cards is $390, which then proves that the 15 pt drop on Mar 2 was due to a balance increase)

Example 4: Removing disputed status INCREASES score 20 pts

After doing a debt validation with an OC, they put a note on the account that consumer disputes the information. When applying for a mortgage, the lender stated that they can't have these dispute comments on any accounts because the FICO scoring model then excludes them from the scoring, thereby artificially inflating your score. Makes sense. So I had this comment removed...the result, the score goes UP 20 pts, when it seems it should've went down.

Image: EQ 20 pt increase to remove dispute status

Example 5: XP decrease 10 pt for balance decrease

I like to call this one, "Damned if you do....Damned if you don't"

Remember Example 1 above where XP dinged me 58 pts for increasing my CC balance from $0 to $90. Well I figured I'd just reverse that and pay it back down from $90 - $4...util goes from 15% to 0%...and instead of reversing the 58 pt drop, they DING ME AGAIN another 10 points!!! **bleep**....really...**bleep**!?!?!?! What kind of "scoring model" is this...is someone in a room with a magic 8 ball?

At lease EQ almost gets it right...it gives me 6 of the 10 points that it originally dinged me back...maybe because I left a $4 balance instead of paying it totally off? (Again, I've read that having some small balance is better than no balance...NOT!)

Image: XP ding again -10

Image: EQ +6 on balance decrease

Example 6: +5 Points for Inquiries...get your points here!

Hard pulls are supposed to have a negative impact on your score...not in FICO 8 I guess:

Image: XP +5 for inquiry

I find all these discrepancies extremely frustrating, especially given the fact that the main reason I signed up for score watch through myFICO, was that I thought I was getting THE AUTHORITY on scoring from them. All these issues are just from the past 45 days or so...this is not over years...6 issues in 45 days! What am I paying for?

I called up the myFICO team and asked them to take a look at example 1. They agreed that it didn't look right. Especially since 2 CRAs score it so drastically different but yet they are both supposedly using FICO 8. How could the same event report different score changes using the same "model"? Their answer was that I (yes me) needed to call XP and explain it to them and see what they say. WHAT!? It is FICO's scoring model. I subscribe to myFICO for accurate scoring. And if there is an issue (and they agreed it didn't look right) shouldn't myFico dig into it and have a discussion with XP to figure out how it is reporting so differently? Wouldn't they want to know why and fix it to improve their product?

I am willing to believe that maybe there are reasonable explainations for these discrepancies. Such that maybe there were other data elements that occurred on the same day that were really responsible for the point changes...but if so, then they need to figure out how to report it accurately. Afterall, they do in most cases report the reason for the drop...so if the drop is truly justified fine, but they need to report the correct reason if they are going to give a reason.

In the end, I just want to know how credit report changes affect my score so I can then do the right things to improve it. But with wonky reporting like this, it's like trying to navigate by compass in a room full of magnets.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:02:57 GMT

I say keep doing the right thing & your score will go back up. I had a similar situation. Just paying my small limit cc's, mtg & car payment. Never a change in my score & suddenly it went up. I did get some good reward cards & a new car payment since & my score dropped but I now know why. No one really knows for sure what they use to determine your score. 1% is ideal for utilization! I did do a lot of research on what the over 800's pratice & do the same. You'll get a lot of good answers here from some seasoned posters. I learned a lot in the ittle time I've been here.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:44:35 GMT

Keep in mind that the reason given for the change is nothing but the event that caused the update in score. 5 events could have taken place, good or bad to affect the scoring. Not all events will cause an update.

Ex. If you have 5 credit cards with 1 reporting a balance..... Score 730 on January 1. On February 1, 2 cards report a balance. This would be a negative in FICO. BUT... Let's say on February 1 Your AAoA jumps from 1 to 2 years, Length of history goes from 7-8 and 3 of your cards age to 1 year old. Even though all this happened in this time frame...... You will get a score update of a balance increase..... But you better believe the score will be going up and not down.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

NRB525 — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:20:36 GMT

OP, you have a lot of score changes, for sure.

You also seem to have a list of disputes, perhaps lates? any charged off accounts? only a short credit history?

Are you rebuilding from a BK? The scores dropping into the 500's indicates something significant that is negative in your past.

For event #1, were all of your cards reporting zero, so you had no reported CC balances just prior to the $90 reporting? At the very least, going from $0 to $90 is "taking on new debt" regardless of amount and will cause score drops.

Thanks for the list of events, you've got a good start to the timeline to try to understand this.

Can you list all your CC and any loans, aging, credit limits, and how much typically reports?

And clarify please the disputed accounts or any lates.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

racer-x — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:34:14 GMT

zigzag - Great lst post...a lot of time and effort put into it. You laid out in a very detailed display what many, many of us have been seeing.

Lately, the myFICO mods, super gurus, and estabished guestimators have been avoiding this section of the forum. They really can't defend the inaccuracies any longer.

Eric said what many of them say...something else changed, etc...I say to that, if I get an alert for a 58 pt drop because of a $90 balance reporting, and I don't see brand new 90 day lates or a judgement or a tax lien show up on my reports, then I call B S to that argument. The argument that maybe a simple change in an accouunt not being as new as the day before could cause such a drop is lunacy.

They FICO system is screwed up now. Not sure what they're doing.

I had a 6 pt increase alert the other day on EX for this reason: High revolving account utilization 82%.

In the same week, I had 2 new INQ's and a new balance of $154 report, that was previously $0.

It's getting to the point where you're afraid to make any changes at all. Don't increase/decrease balances. Don't change utiiization. Don't get new accts. Don't buy a house. Don't buy a new car even though your daily driver might be on blocks in the backyard. Don't attempt to get out of debt.

Maybe we should all just start living the Dave Ramsey life.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

racer-x — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:36:51 GMT

@NRB525 wrote:
OP, you have a lot of score changes, for sure.
You also seem to have a list of disputes, perhaps lates? any charged off accounts? only a short credit history?
Are you rebuilding from a BK? The scores dropping into the 500's indicates something significant that is negative in your past.

For event #1, were all of your cards reporting zero, so you had no reported CC balances just prior to the $90 reporting? At the very least, going from $0 to $90 is "taking on new debt" regardless of amount and will cause score drops.

Thanks for the list of events, you've got a good start to the timeline to try to understand this.
Can you list all your CC and any loans, aging, credit limits, and how much typically reports?
And clarify please the disputed accounts or any lates.

I had a $154 balance report this week (previously $0), 2 new Inq's, and an alert for "high utilization on revolving account 82% ' = + 6pts EX.

So a new balance reporting obviously doesn't necessarily mean a point drop.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

NRB525 — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:42:18 GMT

@racer-x wrote:
zigzag - Great lst post...a lot of time and effort put into it. You laid out in a very detailed display what many, many of us have been seeing.
Lately, the myFICO mods, super gurus, and estabished guestimators have been avoiding this section of the forum. They really can't defend the inaccuracies any longer.

Eric said what many of them say...something else changed, etc...I say to that, if I get an alert for a 58 pt drop because of a $90 balance reporting, and I don't see brand new 90 day lates or a judgement or a tax lien show up on my reports, then I call B S to that argument. The argument that maybe a simple change in an accouunt not being as new as the day before could cause such a drop is lunacy.

They FICO system is screwed up now. Not sure what they're doing.

I had a 6 pt increase alert the other day on EX for this reason: High revolving account utilization 82%.
In the same week, I had 2 new INQ's and a new balance of $154 report, that was previously $0.

It's getting to the point where you're afraid to make any changes at all. Don't increase/decrease balances. Don't change utiiization. Don't get new accts. Don't buy a house. Don't buy a new car even though your daily driver might be on blocks in the backyard. Don't attempt to get out of debt.

Maybe we should all just start living the Dave Ramsey life.

Weren't there other things in the recent events which were pushing your score down immediately prior to this?

The FICO score model is complex, and so new inputs can change the dynamic of how the past history is interpreted. That 6 point increase is probably just a stabilization after a rough patch of score decreases.

In OP situation, I think there is other information not yet presented. True, without seeing all the details none of us can explain certain score changes. The usual situation here, however, is that these posts start out with one trigger (or a short list as in OP situation) and then there is a slow reveal until we get to the real reason that may not be this week, may not have been listed in the reason for change, but is driving the score changes nonetheless.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

racer-x — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:13:35 GMT

@NRB525 wrote:
@racer-x wrote:
zigzag - Great lst post...a lot of time and effort put into it. You laid out in a very detailed display what many, many of us have been seeing.
Lately, the myFICO mods, super gurus, and estabished guestimators have been avoiding this section of the forum. They really can't defend the inaccuracies any longer.

Eric said what many of them say...something else changed, etc...I say to that, if I get an alert for a 58 pt drop because of a $90 balance reporting, and I don't see brand new 90 day lates or a judgement or a tax lien show up on my reports, then I call B S to that argument. The argument that maybe a simple change in an accouunt not being as new as the day before could cause such a drop is lunacy.

They FICO system is screwed up now. Not sure what they're doing.

I had a 6 pt increase alert the other day on EX for this reason: High revolving account utilization 82%.
In the same week, I had 2 new INQ's and a new balance of $154 report, that was previously $0.

It's getting to the point where you're afraid to make any changes at all. Don't increase/decrease balances. Don't change utiiization. Don't get new accts. Don't buy a house. Don't buy a new car even though your daily driver might be on blocks in the backyard. Don't attempt to get out of debt.

Maybe we should all just start living the Dave Ramsey life.
Weren't there other things in the recent events which were pushing your score down immediately prior to this?

The FICO score model is complex, and so new inputs can change the dynamic of how the past history is interpreted. That 6 point increase is probably just a stabilization after a rough patch of score decreases.

In OP situation, I think there is other information not yet presented. True, without seeing all the details none of us can explain certain score changes. The usual situation here, however, is that these posts start out with one trigger (or a short list as in OP situation) and then there is a slow reveal until we get to the real reason that may not be this week, may not have been listed in the reason for change, but is driving the score changes nonetheless.

When I paid $20k in cc debt a month and half ago, my scores went back up 30 pts to where they were..low 700's.

Since then, I had a new balance report, 4 new INQ's (2 ex, 1 tu, 1eq), and 82% utilization on the USuck account. All negative factors that should have decreased my scores, but instead they increased.

I am waiting for a new $10k CC to report, and a $8500 SP CLI....anxious to see what kinda havoc that'll play.

I understand your argument that sometimes 'full disclosure' of an op's file isn't always given at the onset. But there are just as many or more, where it's easy to see that there is no justification for the eratic score changes.

I love it when i get an alert saying 'your score has changed - 693 to 690.' ????? umkay, thanks for that detailed alert. Hey, did ya also know that water is wet? (not talking to you directly CLD MASTER, in a props to you kinda way)

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

takeshi74 — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:12:21 GMT

The problem is that FICO's algorithms are complex and people are often looking for a simple cause-and-effect relationship when there may be more than just one factor at play. Further, most people in my experience have a poor ability to distinguish causal versus coincidental and they're not equipped to analyze this sort of stuff. I'm not intending to insult anyone -- just pointing out that many are quick to attribute a cause when that may not actually be the cause or there may be other causes at play as well.

Scores are based on the data in reports so one really has to carefully review reports before and after the change to detemrine the cause(s). It's difficult to do this via a forum discussion as the information provided by the person asking for assistance is filtered by the person making the request and often we have to really dig for more information to properly analyze. We would really need full access to one's reports before and after the change to do a proper analysis but, on the other hand, I could certainly understand why people would be uncomfortable disclosing such information.

As stated above, one can't rely solely on what the alerts state to cover all potential changes. Only certain activity triggers the alerts while there are many changes that can impact scoring.

Further, CRA's don't all have the exact same data or update at exactly the same time so that needs to be taken into account as well.

I don't recommend obsessing over the specific numbers. The odds are against anyone trying to reverse engineer any of the algorithms. You're just likely to drive yourself crazy over the ups and downs and the why behind every point change. However, we do know the relative impacts of the standard factors

http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx

and we do know that scores are based on report data. We also know that scoring models tend to favor not only lower revolving utilization and fewer reporting balances for revolving accounts. Give that I recommend focusing on the data in the reports. Good data will lead to good scores.

I'd be happy to try to help the OP to understand the changes but the "evidence" presented by the OP is of no use. Screenshots from myFICO will not help. The data is where the explanation will come from.

@Anonymous wrote:
trying to beef up my score to obtain a mortgage.

Keep in mind that many mortgage lenders don't use FICO 8 scores anyway. If you want to see what your mortgage lender sees then you'll need to know what models and CRA's they're pulling.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

cashnocredit — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:26:28 GMT

Keep in mind that FICO score models are only models for the creation of the scoring algorithms. The algorithms themselves are generated based only on the data from each CRA that offers that FICO score. Identical credit report information can and will usually result in different FICO scores even for the same model.

This may seem erratic but FICO justifies it based on the fact each CRA tends to have different creditor reporting and demographics. Especially geographical ones. Over time they have been converging but the process of FICO score generation remains one that is specific to each CRA's data.

VantageScore's approach has been to identify common reporting characteristics in each CRA and only use those so that people with the exact same accounts reporting generate the same scores. FICO's rebuttal is that this approach yields a less predictive score by ingoring the differences.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

NRB525 — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 04:16:45 GMT

@racer-x wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:
@racer-x wrote:
zigzag - Great lst post...a lot of time and effort put into it. You laid out in a very detailed display what many, many of us have been seeing.
Lately, the myFICO mods, super gurus, and estabished guestimators have been avoiding this section of the forum. They really can't defend the inaccuracies any longer.

Eric said what many of them say...something else changed, etc...I say to that, if I get an alert for a 58 pt drop because of a $90 balance reporting, and I don't see brand new 90 day lates or a judgement or a tax lien show up on my reports, then I call B S to that argument. The argument that maybe a simple change in an accouunt not being as new as the day before could cause such a drop is lunacy.

They FICO system is screwed up now. Not sure what they're doing.

I had a 6 pt increase alert the other day on EX for this reason: High revolving account utilization 82%.
In the same week, I had 2 new INQ's and a new balance of $154 report, that was previously $0.

It's getting to the point where you're afraid to make any changes at all. Don't increase/decrease balances. Don't change utiiization. Don't get new accts. Don't buy a house. Don't buy a new car even though your daily driver might be on blocks in the backyard. Don't attempt to get out of debt.

Maybe we should all just start living the Dave Ramsey life.
Weren't there other things in the recent events which were pushing your score down immediately prior to this?

The FICO score model is complex, and so new inputs can change the dynamic of how the past history is interpreted. That 6 point increase is probably just a stabilization after a rough patch of score decreases.

In OP situation, I think there is other information not yet presented. True, without seeing all the details none of us can explain certain score changes. The usual situation here, however, is that these posts start out with one trigger (or a short list as in OP situation) and then there is a slow reveal until we get to the real reason that may not be this week, may not have been listed in the reason for change, but is driving the score changes nonetheless.

When I paid $20k in cc debt a month and half ago, my scores went back up 30 pts to where they were..low 700's.
Since then, I had a new balance report, 4 new INQ's (2 ex, 1 tu, 1eq), and 82% utilization on the USuck account. All negative factors that should have decreased my scores, but instead they increased.
I am waiting for a new $10k CC to report, and a $8500 SP CLI....anxious to see what kinda havoc that'll play.
I understand your argument that sometimes 'full disclosure' of an op's file isn't always given at the onset. But there are just as many or more, where it's easy to see that there is no justification for the eratic score changes.
I love it when i get an alert saying 'your score has changed - 693 to 690.' ????? umkay, thanks for that detailed alert. Hey, did ya also know that water is wet? (not talking to you directly CLD MASTER, in a props to you kinda way)

Another opinion I have about FICO scoring is, when there are major shocks to the information in the credit report, that causes the short term score to go a little loopy. After the shock fades a bit, then the scores tend to build this new set of information into a new normal, still primarily influenced by the payment history in the file. For example, my opinion of the idea of keeping all balances at zero, one reporting is, that becomes a stabilized pattern of information for FICO to work with. When one of those zeroed accounts gets a new balance, even a small balance, it is a shock to the model, and the cardholder will report that their score dropped X points and immediately blame the multiple cards reporting, then try to quickly adjust back. Over time, however, the FICO model probably absorbs this (say the cardholder went from 1 to 2 cards reporting) and would recover soon enough, in a couple of months, to nearly the same level. But most cardholders here don't have that kind of patience when they think they can get those X points right back by doing something else.

So, in your file, with all the moving pieces, you could argue that FICO is still recovering and making adjustments to fold all that information into your scores. Minor balance increases (as opposed to new balances reporting from prior zero balances) are a minor issue at that point. The score could have been planning to go up anyway when the 82% utilization reported, as a continuation of the $30k pay down, but the utilization might have keep that second set of increases reduced. With so many moving parts it's all speculation, but we do expect some negative impact from increased utilization. What I'm thinking is, you did get a negative effect from the 82% util reporting, but it was hidden in another catch up reason that resulted in an increase in scores for the other reasons.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 05:35:58 GMT

In my opinion, the defense that "scoring models are complicated so you can't fully understand it", is diverting the issue. myFico is the one that is indicating that there is indeed a single and direct cause-effect relationship. Look at their alerts. They list the cause, and only one cause, and then list the effect. If this is not the case, then they shouldn't report it as such.

Second, these changes are occuring within days of each other, which greatly reduces the probability that there a lot of "other things" going on. The longer the time period between reporting, the greater the chance of multiple events occuring that could be affecting the score...and vice versa.

But again, what I'm most frustrated with is that it is myFico stating the cause - effect relationship behind each event and it appears to be totally irrational results based on their guidelines of the FICO model. IF there are multiple events occuring in these short spans of time, why show the one event that correlates the least to the score change? E.g. "You have a new Inquiry" +6 points. If your score changed +6 points that day, and it was due to something else, then it would make sense to list the event that was the primary driver of the score change (and definitely don't list the even that goes totally in the opposite direction of what is expected).

What they are doing today is akin to:

ALERT: The human life expectancy age increased 10 years since 1950

CAUSE: McDonalds Opened in 1950

Many things happened between 1950 and today, McDonald's opening being one (note I have not actually checked the dates of when McDonald's first opened, this is just an anology). But that event is definitely NOT the one that was responsible for the increased life expectancy age. I'm sure most would find somone purporting such cause and effect claims to be rediculous and would quickly lose faith in them.

And what else is ridiculous:

ALERT: Your score increased 6 points today!

CAUSE: You have a new inquiry!

myFico is an entity that is supposed to be THE authority, but they are undermining their own credibility with their style of reporting alerts/score changes. Additionally, and I'm no lawyer, but it seems feasible that they may also be opening themselves up to liability as they are charging for their Score Watch service, which most people would purchase because they want to understand the cause and effect relationship of their credit related actions and consider myFico an authority. As such they'd have a fiduciary responsibility to provide accurate information. If somene sees that a new inquiry increases their score by 6 points, they may take that as they should continue to rack up inquiries. Then their credit is damaged and they sustain some loss as a result....it could result in a lawsuit or even a class action lawsuit. Could this happen? I don't know, but does it seem feasible...I think so. But again, I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night

I think myFico has the opportunity to provide a great service. Credit scores are extremely important in our society and their service could really help the average consumer to better understand the drivers behind their score. But the way they are executing their service today is taking things in the opposite direction, causing even more confusion and less understanding. The fact that they have a monopoly on the scoring system of choice for creditors means they are in a position of incredible power. Vantage and other alternate models are trying to chip away at them...if they lose too much credibility, at some point, their monopoly may be no more.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 05:59:10 GMT

I lived the Dave Ramsey lifestyle for many years. Not because of Ramsey but because that is how I was taught by my dad. I have been building credit and watching scores since December. I think I was better off NOT knowing lol Every response is a guess based on older theories. Everything I did was right and I lost points like crazy.

What I have seen with hours upon hours of reading here and various other sites, Fico goes nuts on those rebuilding or those with newer files. Older and more established files don't see a lot of changes. Perfect example: I have a very new credit file - apart from an old closed account 10 yrs ago, all my accounts started in October or November. My DH on the other hand has a long and old credit file. Nothing seems to phase his scores. He hasn't been able to get TU to budge off the same number since November. Trust me, I have tried it all because I use the cards and pay the bills.

We want to buy a house but I am scared to death. The way scores are eratically changing with fico, I am now paranoid we can go in with 680 scores, sneeze and come out with 580 scores! All I can do is watch and hope some where along the way, my scores will quit looking like a seesaw and more like a climbing trellis.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

racer-x — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:01:58 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, the defense that "scoring models are complicated so you can't fully understand it", is diverting the issue. myFico is the one that is indicating that there is indeed a single and direct cause-effect relationship. Look at their alerts. They list the cause, and only one cause, and then list the effect. If this is not the case, then they shouldn't report it as such.

Second, these changes are occuring within days of each other, which greatly reduces the probability that there a lot of "other things" going on. The longer the time period between reporting, the greater the chance of multiple events occuring that could be affecting the score...and vice versa.

But again, what I'm most frustrated with is that it is myFico stating the cause - effect relationship behind each event and it appears to be totally irrational results based on their guidelines of the FICO model. IF there are multiple events occuring in these short spans of time, why show the one event that correlates the least to the score change? E.g. "You have a new Inquiry" +6 points. If your score changed +6 points that day, and it was due to something else, then it would make sense to list the event that was the primary driver of the score change (and definitely don't list the even that goes totally in the opposite direction of what is expected).

What they are doing today is akin to:
ALERT: The human life expectancy age increased 10 years since 1950
CAUSE: McDonalds Opened in 1950

Many things happened between 1950 and today, McDonald's opening being one (note I have not actually checked the dates of when McDonald's first opened, this is just an anology). But that event is definitely NOT the one that was responsible for the increased life expectancy age. I'm sure most would find somone purporting such cause and effect claims to be rediculous and would quickly lose faith in them.

And what else is ridiculous:
ALERT: Your score increased 6 points today!
CAUSE: You have a new inquiry!

myFico is an entity that is supposed to be THE authority, but they are undermining their own credibility with their style of reporting alerts/score changes. Additionally, and I'm no lawyer, but it seems feasible that they may also be opening themselves up to liability as they are charging for their Score Watch service, which most people would purchase because they want to understand the cause and effect relationship of their credit related actions and consider myFico an authority. As such they'd have a fiduciary responsibility to provide accurate information. If somene sees that a new inquiry increases their score by 6 points, they may take that as they should continue to rack up inquiries. Then their credit is damaged and they sustain some loss as a result....it could result in a lawsuit or even a class action lawsuit. Could this happen? I don't know, but does it seem feasible...I think so. But again, I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night

I think myFico has the opportunity to provide a great service. Credit scores are extremely important in our society and their service could really help the average consumer to better understand the drivers behind their score. But the way they are executing their service today is taking things in the opposite direction, causing even more confusion and less understanding. The fact that they have a monopoly on the scoring system of choice for creditors means they are in a position of incredible power. Vantage and other alternate models are trying to chip away at them...if they lose too much credibility, at some point, their monopoly may be no more.

kudos x 1000....what he said.

If CK and Vantage continue to match my myFico scores, it's gonna be bye bye bye my my myfico.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

HiLine — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 01:24:10 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

In the end, I just want to know how credit report changes affect my score so I can then do the right things to improve it. But with wonky reporting like this, it's like trying to navigate by compass in a room full of magnets.

Honestly, it is very hard to know precisely. And I like it that way because it prevents the scoring system from being manipulated and exploited. The advice is just focus on doing the right things and your score will improve. And it sounds like you are doing the right things. Keep on trucking!

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

HiLine — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 01:29:44 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, the defense that "scoring models are complicated so you can't fully understand it", is diverting the issue. myFico is the one that is indicating that there is indeed a single and direct cause-effect relationship. Look at their alerts. They list the cause, and only one cause, and then list the effect. If this is not the case, then they shouldn't report it as such.

Can you point out to me where MyFICO says something is the cause and something else is the effect? Because this is not the way their monitoring services work. I explained this here: http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/I-DON-T-UNDERSTAND/td-p/3838526

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

NRB525 — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 02:05:51 GMT

OP could you clarify please your disputes and any lates? List your CC and amounts, amounts typically reported?

You, along with everyone else, has a lot of information in your credit file. That information is complex. If you have disputes or lates anywhere in your file, that is a major effect on the scoring results. The information does not come in with future understanding, it gets included in the scoring model in little bits. That makes for noise in the scoring system.

There is no direct cause and effect in FICO scores for any one action/event in isolation of the rest of the CR. People would like to see that, but that is not how this scoring works and it would be impossible to design it that way because of the unique history of each person's own file.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:11:43 GMT

What are the effects of disputes? And what types of disputes.

For example, I had a lender tell me that I had too many accounts that had the "Consumer disputes this account" notation on them (which results when you DV an account with the OC) and that those trade lines essentially get removed from the FICO scoring model. As such, I'd have to remove those comments. I did do that and I did receive alerts that noted those comment changes, but they did not have any score change as a result.

Then there are also TLs that I have disputed with the CRAs direclty. In speaking with the CRAs, they state that those types of disputed accounts do not have any impact on your score and that lenders don't have any visibility to those accounts that are being disputed until the results then come back and either change or don't change your file.

So in the first example, is what I have been told true? Are original OC accounts with disputed comments removed from the scoring model? I did attempt to have those comments removed by calling the CRAs and I told them that they are not longer in dispute. I think they removed some but not all of the dispute comments. Would this then be the real reason my score dropped so much? These are TLs that have had no activity for 3 - 4 years, so rather old...does this dispute comment change "re-age" the effect?

If so, would it help to re-DV them to add those comments back? The problem is that I was originally approved for a loan and had a 667 middle score. Now we are getting close to close and the lender re-pulled and I now have a 574....as a result, the terms have changed dramatically and I'd need to put another 10% down, which I don't have. The result of which would be losing my $20k earnest money and having to scramble to find some new rental home to rent in a short period of time.

OTher background. On my open active revolving I have about $9k of credit lines with balances between $0 and $300. I have several revolving charge offs from 3.5 years ago. No negatives for 3+ years.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

gdale6 — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:18:22 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
What are the effects of disputes? And what types of disputes.

For example, I had a lender tell me that I had too many accounts that had the "Consumer disputes this account" notation on them (which results when you DV an account with the OC) and that those trade lines essentially get removed from the FICO scoring model. As such, I'd have to remove those comments. I did do that and I did receive alerts that noted those comment changes, but they did not have any score change as a result.

Then there are also TLs that I have disputed with the CRAs direclty. In speaking with the CRAs, they state that those types of disputed accounts do not have any impact on your score and that lenders don't have any visibility to those accounts that are being disputed until the results then come back and either change or don't change your file.

So in the first example, is what I have been told true? Are original OC accounts with disputed comments removed from the scoring model? I did attempt to have those comments removed by calling the CRAs and I told them that they are not longer in dispute. I think they removed some but not all of the dispute comments. Would this then be the real reason my score dropped so much? These are TLs that have had no activity for 3 - 4 years, so rather old...does this dispute comment change "re-age" the effect?

If so, would it help to re-DV them to add those comments back? The problem is that I was originally approved for a loan and had a 667 middle score. Now we are getting close to close and the lender re-pulled and I now have a 574....as a result, the terms have changed dramatically and I'd need to put another 10% down, which I don't have. The result of which would be losing my $20k earnest money and having to scramble to find some new rental home to rent in a short period of time.

OTher background. On my open active revolving I have about $9k of credit lines with balances between $0 and $300. I have several revolving charge offs from 3.5 years ago. No negatives for 3+ years.

Some of the attributes of the TLs are removed from Fico scoring while marked in dispute not all. Removing the dispute remarks from a few while others remain may not result in a score change. A mortgage lender will demand all those dispute comments be removed so they can get a true Fico on you and as you have discovered its changing the terms of your loan. You want to pay off all your revoving credit lines except for 1 that you will let report 1-9% of its individual CL, this is the fastest way to boost Fico score.

Re: Litany of irrational score changes

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:55:29 GMT

Thanks for the info gdale6, good to know. So when we say remove those "dispute oomments"...are they there as a result of a DV letter to the OC or a CR dispute with the CRA?...i.e. which type of dispute results in those dispute comments on the TL?