Synchrony has their own scoring model now

[GApeachy]

+100 ^^^^ that....I have been saying the exact same thing to my ds and dil.  Be patient, it will come.  Dil's scores are in the high 770's but her mortgage, auto and bankcard per Experian's Additional Scores are low 700's and high 600's.  "What Hurts" short account history.

Ds's scores plummeted when an acct. reported a high balance (the one that had the 8 fraud trans. and put him over his limit)  so we are looking forward to the next Cap1 update.  Before that he had a 771, but again, those other scores were in the low 700's and high 600's........these are the scores used sometimes and that's why I told them they need time for those scores to improve.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
@creds, a macro view of all this:

A young 739 is viewed as a great start but nothing has been proven yet on the timeframe that credit looks at.

It’s great that your score is at that point, it means that you’re doing the right thing paying bills and handling UTI, but it’s not long enough to gauge how you’re going to be long-term. In credit, 8 months is the blink of an eye. Pay a bill an hour after the cutoff and you can usually kiss goodbye any hope of a CLI from that lender for the next two years while paying a 29.99% penalty interest. The more conservative the bank, the longer the timeline for everything is. Chase won’t entertain extending credit without a year’s history, and won’t be the first to offer you a line of credit at $____ - you have to prove yourself with another bank’s money first. Read what people go through to get a USB Altitude Reserve, or a Crystal VISA from CNB. You haven’t even seen a cold shoulder yet.

Feeling like you’re being slighted because of a young age on a good score sucks, but read around and you’ll see where the vets and OGs here have cautioned new credit users many times - a thin file, or young 739 is NOT the same as a 739 with several years of history. That shows you can do this over time, through life’s ups and downs, through bear and bull markets, and still maintain a good profile. That’s what banks want to see to open the vault. Your young profile is no one’s fault, not yours or ours, it just is what it is, and what will improve it is time and moderation in apps and spending.

This is why we’ve tried to caution you against too much too soon. An aged profile with good scores will be approved with 10 inquiries when a young profile is declined with four. You just haven’t been in the game long enough to prove enough to them to get them to open the wallet.

With time and moderation, you will. Without one of those factors, you won’t. That’s really what it comes down to. The score matters, but so does the age and the gradual accumulation of trade lines.

---

this is not about why i was denied for that boa card, or my length of accounts history. it's about the pointlessness of scores, that's what we are talking about here.

a 739 is a 739, that's how scores work. age factors are built in to the scoring algorirthm already. it's 15% of the score. if fico thought my score should be lower they would already have made it lower.

you say a young 739 is not the same as a 739 with several years of history when it comes to approvals and that's true. but it proves that they aren't going off the basis of scores alone, which is what i did already say, that the score itself is pointless.

but a person with no credit of their own, none at all, who add's an au card magically can get 20 years of history and would be approved on that basis alone. they would have gotten that boa card. the bank told me so themselves.

and their fico score would be quite high indeed for having no credit of their own. which is nonsense because the score is meant to predict a single user's risk of default. the entirety of that score would belong to a 3rd party.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

you say a young 739 is not the same as a 739 with several years of history when it comes to approvals and that's true. but it proves that they aren't going off the basis of scores alone, which is what i did already say, that the score itself is pointless.

---

As you say, it's not the only factor, but it IS a factor, so calling it pointless is not really true.   Yes, you can game the scores to some extent, and so those that are able are free to do so if they wish.    But the idea is that the models are indeed predictive, and if enough gaming goes on to impact outcomes (e.g. all those whose scores are really dependent on being AUs default at high rates) then the models will change.

I'm not really clear what is being argued here, we all agree that scores are not the unique factor, but they do matter to a large extent, and can be gamed.

[Anonymous]

That’s with that bank, and banks can opt to count AU history or discount it entirely. They each choose how to treat it. The benefit of AU accounts is that one can get approved with certain banks off the aging of the AU, and build their own history that way. The downside is that only certain banks are open to it.

As for the age, yes it is built into the score. It’s a fixed percentage which means that higher age accounts that carry a given score have proven to be resilient over time and able to maintain a good score. A young profile at the same score shows that the strength of that score is almost entirely due to other factors, like payment history. But it’s easy enough to have perfect payment history for a matter of months, but not so much over a spread of years, unless one is disciplined. The responsibility shown over those years is what gets them to open the vault, so to speak. Score will let them decide whether to entertain your application. Profile will determine approval and terms.

[FinStar]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

you say a young 739 is not the same as a 739 with several years of history when it comes to approvals and that's true. but it proves that they aren't going off the basis of scores alone, which is what i did already say, that the score itself is pointless.

---

As you say, it's not the only factor, but it IS a factor, so calling it pointless is not really true.   Yes, you can game the scores to some extent, and so those that are able are free to do so if they wish.    But the idea is that the models are indeed predictive, and if enough gaming goes on to impact outcomes (e.g. all those whose scores are really dependent on being AUs default at high rates) then the models will change.

I'm not really clear what is being argued here, we all agree that scores are not the unique factor, but they do matter to a large extent, and can be gamed.

---

This ^^^ exactly.

As the topic has veered off course, the OP was about SYNCB's scoring model.   Btw, thanks for pointing out the older thread @Anonymous.  I had completely forgotten this was already discussed years ago. .

@Anonymous for the benefit of the original discussion, the thread needs to be brought back on topic - SYNCB's scoring system.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
That’s with that bank, and banks can opt to count AU history or discount it entirely. They each choose how to treat it. The benefit of AU accounts is that one can get approved with certain banks off the aging of the AU, and build their own history that way. The downside is that only certain banks are open to it.

As for the age, yes it is built into the score. It’s a fixed percentage which means that higher age accounts that carry a given score have proven to be resilient over time and able to maintain a good score. A young profile at the same score shows that the strength of that score is almost entirely due to other factors, like payment history. But it’s easy enough to have perfect payment history for a matter of months, but not so much over a spread of years, unless one is disciplined. The responsibility shown over those years is what gets them to open the vault, so to speak. Score will let them decide whether to entertain your application. Profile will determine approval and terms.

---

And, as I said earlier, the banks use the various models because they believe that they are suitably predictive.   So, as a made up example, it MIGHT be the case that people with a big score boost due to being AU might not be that much of a bigger risk.   Someone (with presumably a good history) is willing to add them to their account, so there might be some filtering there, and it could also be that the "real" owner is acting as a good role model and so influences the AU to be more responsible.

Yes, made up, but without knowing the predictive value of things, some of the things that appear gaming might be of real value to the banks

[Remedios]

Your 739 on a single CRA is only being compared to those with similar length of credit history. 

Someone with AU account faces same challenges when seeking approval as you do. Most lenders remove AU accounts out of consideration during approval process. If AU was all it took, things would be a whole lot easier. 

Score is not meaningless when put into proper context. 

Your oldest card reported 7 times maybe. Some people here have that 7 cards report in one week. 

If you're suggesting that your score should be lowered to adequately represent your lack of history...well, that's just profound lack of understanding.

You're right about one thing, score is fairly meaningless compared to what actually matters, and that's your credit report. 

How a lender sets values of each aspect determines outcome of an application.

Individual parts of your credit report are "graded" for lack of better word during application evaluation. 

Your score may net you 50 points in internal scoring, but your 8 months will make you lose 200 or point to *deny*. 

Most tend to place significant value on length of credit history. 

Your score is decent. Your credit report is one page. One outweighs the other.

[Remedios]

Well, I was typing. The whole *move on* part was not visible to me 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

---

@FinStar wrote:

---

@Anonymous for the benefit of the original discussion, the thread needs to be brought back on topic - SYNCB's scoring system.

---

saeren wrote: "Pretty soon scoring will be meaningless."

i didn't leave the topic, everyone else did. they wanted to start talking about my lack of credit history and poke fun at me for being denied a BoA card. i was continuing the topic exactly where saeren had left it.

[FinStar]

We're not here to go in a back-and-forth. However, I fail to see how you were poked fun at for being denied a BoA card.

Members assessed your posts and simply commented. It's also important to recognize on these forums that you have the option (like any other member) not to engage in any of the discussions you feel do not align with your thought process as opposed to heading into non-FSR territory.

And as far as @Anonymous's entire comment (minus the emoji) "Pretty soon scoring will be meaningless because everyone has their own scores they use" seems to infer that different lenders like NFCU, Chase, etc. (or at least those who have their own proprietary models), would be challenging to interpret in establishing a baseline of what they expect to consider as a range or benchmark for any approvals.