Hey @gdale6 are you in their service area?
@M_Smart007 we were joking about that Resilience score a few weeks ago. Wouldn't surprise me at all to find that out.
Actually I'll compare those reason codes to her Resilience scores on her MyFico account... see if there's a correlation.
@805orbust wrote:Hey @gdale6 are you in their service area?
@M_Smart007 we were joking about that Resilience score a few weeks ago. Wouldn't surprise me at all to find that out.
No, I am not in their footprint. Didnt even know about this bank until they solicited me in 2012 when I was in a rebuild living in Idaho at the time. The changes that I can say I have seen to my 2 accounts are no more BT checks are being mailed, when I PCd their regular 1.5% visa to the Evergreen is it hasnt been eligible for any BTs since, My Bucks Back has online BT offers available for fixed 5.99 but their BT fee is high 5%, I wont bite at that since I have lower BT 0% offers from other banks, all previous offers have been in the 2-3% BT fee.
@M_Smart007 wrote:
@805orbust wrote:I scanned the full letter sent to DW today for reference... well 80% of it. There's more gobbledygook on page 2 but nothing important. Check it out.
@805orbust, Thanks for re loading the whole page.
I am no expert on credit scoring, so maybe someone like @FireMedic1 , @OmarGB9 or @SouthJamaica ETA @Revelate could chime in?.
It sure looks like they are using [ EX resilience scoring ] in assessing ones whole credit profile ..No? (I could be wrong
)
You are wrong
It's basically them stating that payments are too low for the amount and that it's been that way for a while.
Those reason codes aren't derived from CRA, they are specific to FNBO account.
Every AA letter is going to reference one or more CRAs, partially because that's where report lives, but more so that you can get a copy of your own report since law mandates it whenever AA occurs
Used to mean something long time ago when reports/scores weren't as widely available as they are these days.
Now you can get them from vending machine
@805orbust wrote:I scanned the full letter sent to DW today for reference... well 80% of it. There's more gobbledygook on page 2 but nothing important. Check it out.
first and third reasons are basically in opposition. they're telling you that you aren't using enough of your existing limit, but also telling you that you're not paying off enough of what you're using lmao. it'd be one thing if you were at 90% utilization and were paying just the minimum, but if they cut it to $5250 from $18k, your utilization was probably less than 29%.
anyway, as always, it's the lender's prerogative to do stuff like this, but yea, those reasons make little sense to me.
@805orbust Here are my reason codes straight from my fbno letter. I posted them early in the combined thread (about a month ago) I am reposting them here so you don't have to go through the entire 26 page thread to find them:
Here is what the letter said the decision was based on:
Length of time since account opened
Pattern of account use
Current balance as % of recent balances.
These reasons are the exact wording in my letter. Since I rarely used the card, and when I did it was for a small amount, I would say I was assigned a score of "nonuse" and it was closed for nonuse. I interpret the last reason listed above like this: they clearly were looking at my other cards where I had some larger furniture and home decor purchases that I paid off right way. (I would even say they were jealous lol 
)
FBNO: = jealous credit report stalker, at least in my case.
@M_Smart007 wrote:
@805orbust wrote:I scanned the full letter sent to DW today for reference... well 80% of it. There's more gobbledygook on page 2 but nothing important. Check it out.
@805orbust, Thanks for re loading the whole page.
I am no expert on credit scoring, so maybe someone like @FireMedic1 , @OmarGB9 or @SouthJamaica ETA @Revelate could chime in?.
It sure looks like they are using [ EX resilience scoring ] in assessing ones whole credit profile ..No? (I could be wrong
I'm no expert on credit scoring either. My impression is that they've devised some kind of internal score based on your external data. But I have no understanding of what they mean by the criteria they've mentioned which resulted in your decrease.
I know that @Remedios concludes that it is based on internal data rather than external data, but if that were the case I don't know why they would have needed to refer to your EX report.
