topic Re: Really?? in Understanding FICO® Scoring

Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:08:03 GMT

My score dropped 7 points from 834 to 827 because of increases in 4 accounts in the TOTAL amount of $1,852. None of the accounts are late or have EVER been reported late. All accounts are current and up to date. An increase in 4 accounts (in an amount of less than $2K) should not cause a 7 point drop in my credit score. This scoring system seems arbitrary and lacks common sense.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:11:00 GMT

I'm pretty sure that if I had nearly perfect scores I really wouldn't care about an 8/10 of one percent fluctuation.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:23:21 GMT

It matters to me in principle. A consumer has the reasonable expectation of reliability and a scoring system that is not consistent is a sham.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:42:11 GMT

Utilization is 30% of the score. When utilization goes up, the score can go down. There's nothing inconsistent about that. Additional information:

http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/WhatsInYourScore.aspx

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:50:03 GMT

My utilization has not changed. I have been using the same accounts during the last 4 quarters. The outstanding balances have stayed below $2K. Until now my scores have consistently gone up never down for the past 2 years because my spending pattern has remained constant.

Re: Really??

Revelate — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:59:42 GMT

To add, the algorithm is consistent; however, not every change which strikes us as trivial to us is borne out in FICO's data.

To give an example someone with a near 800 score last year went and let $1 report on all of her cards... $8 total revolving balances and absolutely got hammered for it. While that was an extreme example I have to laugh at it, the algorithm is consistent, it's just not always "accurate" from our consumer view point, or even underwriter's viewpoints either, there's more which goes into an approval decision than FICO score.

It's not just an aggregate utilization calculation, there's also a number of revolving tradelines with balances calculation (which is known to exist but not sure where all the breakpoints are but 1 revolving trade reporting a balance appears to be optimized for everyone), and also an individual tradeline utilization calculation, and that's just what we're aware of after lots of anecdotal testing.

I honestly wouldn't worry about it much, anything north of 760 is gold plated territory and small variations in score shouldn't concern anyone let alone someone in the lofty strata north of 800 where the changes are indeed trivial from a lender perspective.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:59:48 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
My utilization has not changed. I have been using the same accounts during the last 4 quarters. The outstanding balances have stayed below $2K. Until now my scores have consistently gone up never down for the past 2 years because my spending pattern has remained constant.

If your utilization hasn't changed, what did you mean when you stated this:

My score dropped 7 points from 834 to 827 because of increases in 4 accounts in the TOTAL amount of $1,852.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:02:48 GMT

If the algo was consistent then my score should have gone up as in previous quarters - all things being the same (ie, my spending pattern and card utilization).

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:39 GMT

I have had increases in each of the 4 accounts over the past 4 quarters. These increases (of less than 2K on average) have never caused my score to go down until now.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:17:16 GMT

...I honestly wouldn't worry about it much, anything north of 760 is gold plated territory and small variations in score shouldn't concern anyone let alone someone in the lofty strata north of 800 where the changes are indeed trivial from a lender perspective.

My GF tells me to relax too but it's the principle - and my OCD for consistency.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:45:29 GMT

The only consistent in life is change.

Most would be happy to have your problem. Keep in mind utilization isn't the only scoring variable. Your score is based on the cumulative effect of all variables.

Re: Really??

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:54:49 GMT

Your scores are still awesome though

Re: Really??

RobertEG — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 06:17:39 GMT

The FICO algorithms are not "consistent."

The algorithm changes when it sees certain overall category critera in order to continually compare with peers in that category.

Credit scorcard categorization is standard in the scoring game, and often leads to new scoing that does not follow the same pattern as prior scoring.

Scorecard categorization is also referred to as rebucketing.

FICO does not make public the specific criterion that trigger changes in a consumer's categorization,and can only be determined by posting of anecdotal experiences of others. I am sure others thank you for posting your scoring experience in your apparent rebucketing.

Re: Really??

MidnightVoice — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:55:33 GMT

I talked to my USBanker recently, and above 760 is gold plated, but above 800 is "Please, what can I do for you?"

Hit 800+ out of 850 and minor variations are irrelevant

Re: Really??

Revelate — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:58:45 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
The FICO algorithms are not "consistent."

The algorithm changes when it sees certain overall category critera in order to continually compare with peers in that category.
Credit scorcard categorization is standard in the scoring game, and often leads to new scoing that does not follow the same pattern as prior scoring.
Scorecard categorization is also referred to as rebucketing.

FICO does not make public the specific criterion that trigger changes in a consumer's categorization,and can only be determined by posting of anecdotal experiences of others. I am sure others thank you for posting your scoring experience in your apparent rebucketing.

Think we're debating semantics. If you have a file you will get sorted into a bucket which is consistent, and the algorithm to score you inside that bucket is consistent by my terminology.

If you switch buckets as a result of changes in your file, you don't lose that consistency.

If we're suggesting that consistency is that your individual file is scored identically every single time, then OK, but when we're talking instant in time analysis anyway I have a hard time agreeing with that. Also the algorithm inside the bucket appears to hold pretty identically regardless of bucket from the anecdotal data here, though the cleaner the bucket the higher the penalty.