topic Re: Max individual tradeline chasing in Understanding FICO® Scoring

Max individual tradeline chasing

Revelate — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:28:00 GMT

Just a small datapoint, know historically I haven't taken a hit for a second balance on FICO 8 on any bureau, and I haven't found any differences in my <1% and <4% testing at least. Going to try to pay off the Sallie completely before I airstrike the Freedom to get to 1/9 just to isolate that but don't think it'll make a difference. Also may have the CSP reporting by that point which could skew things but unfortunately this is as good of a datapoint as I can get at the moment.

2 reported balances out of 9 tradelines:

$41/8400 - on previously, 0.49% of limit

$875/1000 - just reported, 87.5% of limit

Aggregate: $916 / $34600 = 2.65% utilization

EX FICO 8: 736 -> 728 = -8

EQ FICO 8: 726 -> 722 = -4

TU FICO 8: 736 -> 731 = -5

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

jamie123 — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:37:28 GMT

Wow...That's a pretty good hit for having 1 CC report high UTI even though your total aggregate UTI is so low.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Revelate — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:18:40 GMT

@jamie123 wrote:
Wow...That's a pretty good hit for having 1 CC report high UTI even though your total aggregate UTI is so low.

Yeah, wasn't sure if there was a breakpoint at 80 or 90 as both numbers have been kicked around for years; maybe some other people will get opportunities to test this as well. Held the Freedom at 87.5% this time and there was a drop which isn't likely explained by 2.65% aggregate util nor by 2/9 tradelines reporting a balance.

May delay some Amazon purchases (new toilets) till October for Freedom 5X and see about getting another and possibly cleaner datapoint at 90+

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Thomas_Thumb — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:42:07 GMT

@Revelate wrote:
Just a small datapoint, know historically I haven't taken a hit for a second balance reporting in EQ FICO 8, not sure on EX FICO 8, and I haven't found any differences in my <1% and <4% testing at least. Going to try to pay off the Sallie completely before I airstrike the Freedom to get to 1/9 just to isolate that but don't think it'll make a difference. Also may have the CSP reporting by that point which could skew things but unfortunately this is as good of a datapoint as I can get at the moment.

2 reported balances out of 9 tradelines:

$41/8400 - on previously, 0.49% of limit
$875/1000 - just reported, 87.5% of limit

Aggregate: $916 / $34600 = 2.65% utilization

EX FICO 8: 736 -> 728 = -8
EQ FICO 8: 726 -> 722 = -4

As I recall, you tested 2 cards reporting previously with not score change and I have not seen a negative aggregate UT impact at that low level. It sure looks like a card max out penalty on your Fico 8 score. Maybe it is in that 85% range. Could there be a more severe penalty above 95%?

Really that is a rather small score hit - it supports the theory that Fico 8 algorithms are tuned to put much less weight on individual cards relative to Fico 4. I hit 80.1% on a card and saw no change in Fico 8 but a large drop in Fico 4.

*** Any option to get a side by side impact comparison Fico 8/Fico 4 associated with this max out test? ***

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Revelate — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:30:54 GMT

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
Just a small datapoint, know historically I haven't taken a hit for a second balance reporting in EQ FICO 8, not sure on EX FICO 8, and I haven't found any differences in my <1% and <4% testing at least. Going to try to pay off the Sallie completely before I airstrike the Freedom to get to 1/9 just to isolate that but don't think it'll make a difference. Also may have the CSP reporting by that point which could skew things but unfortunately this is as good of a datapoint as I can get at the moment.

2 reported balances out of 9 tradelines:

$41/8400 - on previously, 0.49% of limit
$875/1000 - just reported, 87.5% of limit

Aggregate: $916 / $34600 = 2.65% utilization

EX FICO 8: 736 -> 728 = -8
EQ FICO 8: 726 -> 722 = -4

As I recall, you tested 2 cards reporting previously with not score change and I have not seen a negative aggregate UT impact at that low level. It sure looks like a card max out penalty on your Fico 8 score. Maybe it is in that 85% range. Could there be a more severe penalty above 95%?

Really that is a rather small score hit - it supports the theory that Fico 8 algorithms are tuned to put much less weight on individual cards relative to Fico 4. I hit 80.1% on a card and saw no change in Fico 8 but a large drop in Fico 4.

*** Any option to get a side by side impact comparison Fico 8/Fico 4 associated with this max out test? ***

I'm going to leave it on there to near the due date rather than paying it immediately; I will get a DCU data point at the end of the month but I may have other accounts on there by that point which might skew it though I think that's manageable. My report isn't unbusy, though I reduced my limit on my DCU secured card to $500 and that's easier to max out in any given month going forward so I should get other datapoints in the future.

Yeah I don't get a difference 1/9 or 2/9 actually now that you mention it, forgot I did 2 3B pulls on that count. The damage isn't obscene, an interesting question would be what happens if I get 2 or more tradelines maxxed out, or as you state, if there's a difference between 87% and 91% or 96%. Likewise I did get a larger FICO 04 drop previously in my old data testing (from a couple years back when Scorewatch was still Beacon 5.0 here) but I also had 10%<x<30% aggregate which might've factored too. I don't have good numbers for aggregate utilization, though depending how much I spend decorating the new place, maybe I can get a number >10% even with the new tradelines.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Revelate — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:53:49 GMT

Transunion updated:

TU FICO 8: 736 -> 731 = -5

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:06:57 GMT

Thanks so much for the information.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

taxi818 — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:20:33 GMT

Ive tried to understand the reasoning behind this as well. honestly before my last baddie fell off everytime i was carrying balances on 40percent of my cards. my eq would drop. Since my report is now clean. My eq never drops below a certain level. even if my utilization goes up. Currently i have a balance on 11 cards. out of 21. very small balances on say 6 of them. I mean $200 dollars or less in most cases. some cases $500 or less. Anyway. nothing over 20%. but on 3 of them im carrying nice balances. 3k=-1.5k and $900 dollars. Total usage is 13% across the board. i know if i pay down my scores will go up. Im just wondering what is the breaking point. say if i pay 3 more of them to 0 balance will score go up. Leaving balances on 8 out of 21. i did not see any change from having balances on 3 out of 21 to where i currently sit now.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Thomas_Thumb — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:23:13 GMT

@taxi818 wrote:
Ive tried to understand the reasoning behind this as well. honestly before my last baddie fell off everytime i was carrying balances on 40percent of my cards. my eq would drop. Since my report is now clean. My eq never drops below a certain level. even if my utilization goes up. Currently i have a balance on 11 cards. out of 21. very small balances on say 6 of them. I mean $200 dollars or less in most cases. some cases $500 or less. Anyway. nothing over 20%. but on 3 of them im carrying nice balances. 3k=-1.5k and $900 dollars. Total usage is 13% across the board. i know if i pay down my scores will go up. Im just wondering what is the breaking point. say if i pay 3 more of them to 0 balance will score go up. Leaving balances on 8 out of 21. i did not see any change from having balances on 3 out of 21 to where i currently sit now.

I am fairly certain the effect of % cards reporting on score is dependent on the scorecard your profile is tied to. Given your report is clean and thick, I suspect impact of # (%) cards reporting is somewhat muted. I have tested 2 of 6, 3 of 6, 4 of 6 and 5 of 6 cards reporting with no impact on Fico 8 scores. For my profile the only potential impact is likely the bookends - 0% or 100% of cards reporting.

You should see a bump up by reducing your overall utilization (usage) to less than 10%.

Not sure that going from 11 to 8 cards reporting will make a difference all else being equal. Some report seeing a score boost associated with less than 50% cards reporting. Not sure if other factors (such as UT%) were held constant in those reports.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Revelate — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:47:18 GMT

Had spending and therefore bonuses to chase, paid off the Freedom:

Equifax FICO 8: identical increase $875/1000 -> $0 gain of 4 points, to what I lost earlier.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Thomas_Thumb — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:55:13 GMT

@Revelate wrote:
Had spending and therefore bonuses to chase, paid off the Freedom:

Equifax FICO 8: identical increase $875/1000 -> $0 gain of 4 points, to what I lost earlier.

Revelate ... is it reasonable to conclude your Fico 8 score was mildly affected (4 points) by allowing one card to show 87.5% utilization? Also, I recall you referencing another situation where a card reported something like 67% with no impact on Fico 8 - please confirm.

Trying to piece together a threshold here based on your data and my own. Take a look at the below and let me know your thoughts:

1) Individual card UT of 51% - no score change (TT data)

2) Individual card UT of 67% - no score change (Rev post)

3) Individual card UT of 80.1% - no score change (TT data)

4) Individual card UT of 87.5% - minor score change (Rev data)

* Possible threshold at 85%? Not really seeing anything to support a Fico 8 score shift associated with individual card UTs at 30% or 50% thresholds.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

Revelate — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:44:32 GMT

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
Had spending and therefore bonuses to chase, paid off the Freedom:

Equifax FICO 8: identical increase $875/1000 -> $0 gain of 4 points, to what I lost earlier.
Revelate ... is it reasonable to conclude your Fico 8 score was mildly affected (4 points) by allowing one card to show 87.5% utilization? Also, I recall you referencing another situation where a card reported something like 67% with no impact on Fico 8 - please confirm.

Trying to piece together a threshold here based on your data and my own. Take a look at the below and let me know your thoughts:
1) Individual card UT of 51% - no score change (TT data)
2) Individual card UT of 67% - no score change (Rev post)
3) Individual card UT of 80.1% - no score change (TT data)
4) Individual card UT of 87.5% - minor score change (Rev data)

* Possible threshold at 85%? Not really seeing anything to support a Fico 8 score shift associated with individual card UTs at 30% or 50% thresholds.

I'll have to go back to confirm the datapoint but that's what I recall, 66% IIRC.

Also got the points back identically on TU 08 (-5 then +5), think it's reasonable to assume at least for my dirty file and we are absolutely in different buckets that the single card on FICO 8 at 87.5 while having a low aggregate is minor. That might change with your clean sheet though I wouldn't think so, I think utilization metrics are fixed regardless of credit bucket.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

axlm — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:55:46 GMT

I have some screenshots from a relative's CKarma and Citi Bankcard score. It shows the effects of 99% (14% aggregated) and 92% (13% aggregated) utilization (CK points taken usually a couple of days after the scores from Citi were calculated). I know they are no 'pure' FICOs, but I thought it might be interesting nonetheless.

Update: I was also able to see EX from Amex, 710/June, 732/July.

Citi scores tracker

CK util for June

CK util for July

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

NRB525 — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:52:06 GMT

I think it's a lower percentage level per card utilization percentage, and is also influenced by dollar amount of the change. Here's my recent run.

The two secured cards of $500 each have added toy BT, increasing their utilization, each to just over 60%.

Delta AMEX went from $630 to $3k, just under 25% utilization.

Since early July, three card inquiries: Venture 3HP, Citi AAdvantage EQ+EX, AMEX SPG, EX only. Venture and Citi have reported in here, SPG not yet.

This is the sequence of score changes on the three bureaus. This is excluding the regular pay down of other balances, and any other activity, all of which had no score change triggered. Said another way, all score changes are listed. As always, this is with 16-17 TU Open Reporting Cards (and 2 closed CC, 1 Revolving LOC, not a term loan, excludes Diners hidden).

Note also that TU has changed the Lead Reason in their periodic "Factors Affecting Your Score" alerts. The lead item used to be "too many accounts with balances", then shifts to "Amounts Owed" after Venture shows up, then lately Proportion of Balances too high after two cards are reporting more than 60%. There's pretty much the same list of 4 in the Reasons, but they change position depending on what is most urgent to address.

Re: Max individual tradeline chasing

NRB525 — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:00:38 GMT

This is the sequence of the TU "FICO Reasons" alerts.

In June, I reached the point where the very last of the indvidual accounts all crossed below 50% utilization. Until then, the lead reason was "Proportion of Balances to Limits is too high'.

After that, the lead reason shifs to "Too many accounts with balances" (15-17), until amounts start to climb again with spend bonus reports, then the two $500 limit cards both go over 50% and the "Proportion of Balances too high" comes back.