No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Anonymous wrote:“(at least $5, but not much more)”
Where the does the idea that the one card needs to report a small balance come from? ( emphasis on small) The upper limit could theoretically be hundreds or thousands of dollars as long as it’s below the thresholds it makes no difference how much it is. The only requirement is that it is large enough to not get rounded to zero. That’s where the $5 comes from. But the “not much more” is as overstated as AZEO’s impact.
In my experience having smaller balances has helped my FICO 8 scores significantly.
AZEO is not important in FICO 8, IMHO, but is important in the mortgage scores.





























@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I can’t quantify it because back then, I wasn’t tracking like I do now. What I can say though is that a significant change occurred in that time period while I literally have none from AZEO. My point is that none of these actions have guaranteed point gains or losses unlike something like adding an installment loan if you don’t have one which is universal because of credit mix. There really isn’t a right answer when it comes to adding a third account because it’s another factor that depends on the profile. Lots of us have found benefit so it seems hard to believe it’s a myth.
No one is saying that it's a myth, just that the points gained from the addition of a 3rd revolver is small in the majority of cases (if not all). Again, to my knowledge number of revolvers is not a Fico scoring ingredient, so the actual addition of another card shouldn't impact scores unless it impacts other scoring ingredients indirectly. Some theorize that there's a "sweet spot" for overall number of accounts on one's credit report, (say) over 10 total accounts but less than 20 total accounts as an example. If someone had 9 total accounts and added another revolver, that would bring them to 10, which if it landed in the "ideal" range for total number of accounts could result in a slight score gain. Again, this gain is likely a couple of points at best and it's not because a revolver was added, it's because an account was added... meaning it could have been a non-revolver. This would happen though from a shift to (say) 9 --> 10, not a revolver shift from 2 --> 3 in terms of what the Fico algorithm is looking at.
Those that are saying they found some benefit greater than a single-digit number of points from adding a 3rd revolver IMO are 99% of the time not looking at only the percentage of accounts with balances metric. You yourself said that you saw a 20-30 point gain over some 3 months... other people reference gains over 6 months, etc. Any gain realized over a period of time such as 3 months or 6 months is not because of a single event 3 or 6 months ago like adding a 3rd revolver. Lots of factors change over that period of time. I already referenced AoOA. Another can be AoYA reaching 3 months and 6 months of age; as that new revolver crosses those believed thresholds score gains can be reported... but those gains aren't from the addition of the 3rd revolver. You'd have to isolate that event. Basically, you'd have to pull your Fico scores just before your new revolver reports, then pull your Fico scores the day it reports (in theory 1 day apart, but the closer the better). If the score gain was 20-30 points, that's worth looking into... like were any utilization thresholds crossed due to the added aggregate revolving denominator. 20-30 points gained at that moment would be meaningful, where 20-30 points 3 or 6 months later IMO has nothing to do with the addition of a 3rd revolver in and of itself. Again, it's simply not a Fico scoring factor.
@Anonymous wrote:
Where the does the idea that the one card needs to report a small balance come from? ( emphasis on small) The upper limit could theoretically be hundreds or thousands of dollars as long as it’s below the thresholds it makes no difference how much it is. The only requirement is that it is large enough to not get rounded to zero. That’s where the $5 comes from. But the “not much more” is as overstated as AZEO’s impact.
It's just that a small amount covers the ideal target percentage across all known limit cards. For example, people have cards with limits as small as (say) $300. On such a card, the balance reported would need to be around $25 to come in under the known threshold. That's why you'll see suggested balances recommended on here in the range of say $5-$20, since anything in that range will "work" on any profile regardless of the credit limit being $300, $30k, whatever. It just takes the guesswork out of it and removes confusion for those that may not understand utilization percentages yet. Certainly those with higher limit cards can report balances in the hundreds, even thousands, although some scoring models are believed to also look at raw dollar value amounts in addition to percentages.
I agree that the $5 balance recommendation is a bit unnecessary at times, but there is no [scoring] benefit to reporting a balance greater than $5. Also when people are newer to the game they often don't know how to time their reported balance around their statement closing date, especially if they're still using their AZEO card. For this reason, an additional transaction or two could "sneak in" and report, adding to the targeted $5 balance or whatever. In this case, perhaps someone ends up reporting a number greater than $5, which if it's too high (depending on limit) could fall outside of the ideal range.
@wasCB14 wrote:
@HeavenOhio wrote:For scoring purposes, there's no need to rotate how your cards report. Do what's convenient for you.
I heard a while back that if a card has had 0 balances for 6-12 months or whatever, scores could suffer if it was treated as "inactive"...even if the account was remaining open.
@wasCB14, we had a discussion on "inactive" cards a while back. The conclusion was that the Equifax "inactive" alert had nothing to do with scoring and everything to do with fraud protection. This past February, that alert was removed.
Figure it this way. Unless a lender reports trended data, the only way to tell if there's been a usage gap is to look at multiple credit reports. FICO doesn't do that. But monitoring services can look at multiple reports whenever they deem it to be useful to their customers. You need two reports to generate a balance change alert, for instance.
Would like to double check one moment - if I have a negative balance (slightly overpayed) on cc, does it counts as 0 ?
Negative balances show up on the report as zero.