No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Anonymous wrote:
@iv wrote:The concrete numbers provided are for EQ 8 Auto...
Oh and nice work @iv , plugging that formula in and generating the chart! That's very, very helpful!
So... digging further into the "magic numbers" in that formula:
-0.110 x FICO Auto Score 8 is the easy one: that scales the 900 score range to a 1-99 range. (Or 27.5-99, with the floor at 250).
Which matches the range of the FRI score... (and you'll note that it's explict that the better your FICO 8 score, the more the penalty increases.)
-1.728 x FRI is less obvious (...although it appears to be -sqrt(e*log(3)), I'm not sure if that's meaningful, or accidental?)
But the combination of the two (without the magic fudge factor of 132.329) gives a range of -100.728 at the 1/900 ("best/best") end of the range, to -198.572 at the 99/250 ("worst/worst") end. Which is within rounding error of a 99-point spread, and likely part of the design.
With that in place for the best/best and worst/worst axis, the 1/250 ("best/worst") and 99/900 ("worst/best") axis ends up at -29.228 and -270.072 - which is a 2.4x wider spread. Probably also intentional - having a wider spread on the "mismatched" axis seems to make sense.
"Raw" offset ranges (without +132.329 factor):
250 | 900 | |
1 | -29.228 | -100.728 |
99 | -198.572 | -270.072 |
Now... those are all negative offsets (some fairly large!), and while they express the RANGE of variation FICO was aiming for, they don't hit the MAGNITUDE desired. Thus the +132.329 fudge factor - to adjust the "zero point" (where the offset formula has no effect). This adjusts the ranges so that a 44/500, a 38/600, a 32/700, a 25/800, and 19/900 has no net negative (or positive) effect.
The spread remains the same as the "raw" numbers, but now at the high (FICO 8 Auto) score end, you have about 1/5 with a positive offset, and 4/5 with a negative, while at the low end you have a 60/40 positive/negative split.
"Adjusted" offset ranges (with +132.329 factor):
250 | 900 | |
1 | 103.101 | 31.601 |
99 | -66.243 | -137.743 |
Based on all of that... anything worse than a 60 FRI is a negative across the board, regardless of score (with higher scores being penalized much more - the penalty gap between 250 and 900 is about 72 points). Meanwhile, any FRI better than 20 is a positive across the board (with lower scores getting boosted much more - same 72 point gap at the extremes). Between 20/900 and 60/250, the "zero point" for FRI follows a fairly smooth line every 15-20 points (see the chart in the prior post).
@iv wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@iv wrote:The concrete numbers provided are for EQ 8 Auto...
Oh and nice work @iv , plugging that formula in and generating the chart! That's very, very helpful!
So... digging further into the "magic numbers" in that formula:
-0.110 x FICO Auto Score 8 is the easy one: that scales the 900 score range to a 1-99 range. (Or 27.5-99, with the floor at 250).
Which matches the range of the FRI score... (and you'll note that it's explict that the better your FICO 8 score, the more the penalty increases.)
-1.728 x FRI is less obvious (...although it appears to be -sqrt(e*log(3)), I'm not sure if that's meaningful, or accidental?)
But the combination of the two (without the magic fudge factor of 132.329) gives a range of -100.728 at the 1/900 ("best/best") end of the range, to -198.572 at the 99/250 ("worst/worst") end. Which is within rounding error of a 99-point spread, and likely part of the design.
With that in place for the best/best and worst/worst axis, the 1/250 ("best/worst") and 99/900 ("worst/best") axis ends up at -29.228 and -270.072 - which is a 2.4x wider spread. Probably also intentional - having a wider spread on the "mismatched" axis seems to make sense.
"Raw" offset ranges (without +132.329 factor):
250 900 1 -29.228 -100.728 99 -198.572 -270.072
Now... those are all negative offsets (some fairly large!), and while they express the RANGE of variation FICO was aiming for, they don't hit the MAGNITUDE desired. Thus the +132.329 fudge factor - to adjust the "zero point" (where the offset formula has no effect). This adjusts the ranges so that a 44/500, a 38/600, a 32/700, a 25/800, and 19/900 has no net negative (or positive) effect.
The spread remains the same as the "raw" numbers, but now at the high (FICO 8 Auto) score end, you have about 1/5 with a positive offset, and 4/5 with a negative, while at the low end you have a 60/40 positive/negative split.
"Adjusted" offset ranges (with +132.329 factor):
250 900 1 103.101 31.601 99 -66.243 -137.743
Based on all of that... anything worse than a 60 FRI is a negative across the board, regardless of score (with higher scores being penalized much more - the penalty gap between 250 and 900 is about 72 points). Meanwhile, any FRI better than 20 is a positive across the board (with lower scores getting boosted much more - same 72 point gap at the extremes). Between 20/900 and 60/250, the "zero point" for FRI follows a fairly smooth line every 15-20 points (see the chart in the prior post).
Really nice, @iv !
Now that I see the pattern in your chart combined with some sort of link to Euler's number, plus the scaling, I'm thinking there's a sigmoid function in all of this. I need to look at some plots in R.
They only gave us information about FICO Auto 8, so I can only speculate about the coefficients used for FICO 8 Classic. It's clear that a dividing line similar to the one you found will exist there.
@Anonymous wrote:Now that I see the pattern in your chart combined with some sort of link to Euler's number, plus the scaling, I'm thinking there's a sigmoid function in all of this. I need to look at some plots in R.
Maybe? But I'm not sure about that - I haven't drawn any fancy graphs from this yet, but just eyeballing the numbers, it looks pretty linear...
@Anonymous wrote:They only gave us information about FICO Auto 8, so I can only speculate about the coefficients used for FICO 8 Classic. It's clear that a dividing line similar to the one you found will exist there.
Yup. If I had to speculate on what the Classic variation for FRI looks like, I'd go with:
(-1.728 x FRI) + (-0.11647 x EQ 8 Classic) + 127
...or something very close to that.
(Chart the resulting numbers against the 300-850 range, and you'll see why.)
Important note for anyone who isn't just here to play with the math: unlike the formula from the FICO document discussed earlier, the one here is purely speculative. Don't use it for anything other than having fun with the current gedankenexperiment.
On a related note: just had the new $50k loan show up on the reports - and the FRI change was... nada. zlitch. zero. Still "52: Moderate", with exactly the same red flags as before. Disappointing! I figured it would move at least a little bit. (8/9 Classic unchanged, mortgage and some industry options wiggled slightly. Boring!)
I pulled my 3B yesterday. Same score. 🤷 Balances are down across the board, but not enough yet evidently.
EQ FICO Resilience Index
Leaderboard as of Thursday, April 8, 2021 |
Breaking News |
@Adkins hangs on to the Golden Chalice and Golden Sword with a recently updated score of 80!
@CreditAggie to 57 with that excellent Citi Costco Visa card! @iv is back with a bang at 52, posting an excellent chart
|
General Information about this score |
This Resilience Index score is included with a myFICO subscription. It will be shown on the dashboard.
And as always - lower rating (higher number) doesn't mean that person has a bad credit profile in any way. This score is really sensitive to balance amounts and it doesn't matter if you have a 600 or 850. |
RECORD HOLDER | EQ FICO RESILIENCE INDEX | |
Adkins | 80 |
MEMBER NAME | SCORES | RED | HIGH | DATE |
RESILIENT [1-44] | ||||
GOLD KEY WINNERS | ||||
juggernaut9* | 32 | 0 | 32 | |
mrsgrits' DH | 32 | 0 | 32 | |
LP007 | 34 | 0 | 34 | |
CreditBones | 37 | 0 | 37 | |
Lulah* | 37 | 0 | 37 | |
USDOD | 37 | 0 | 37 | |
THE BAT | ||||
tacpoly [EQ 8 850] | 39 | 0 | 39 | |
JWD1980* | 40 | 0 | 40 | |
LaHossBoss SO | 40 | 0 | 40 | |
Throckmorton's Wife* | 40 | ? | 40 | |
Tonya-E | 43 | 0 | 43 | |
MODERATE [45-59] | ||||
FiresOut | 45 | 2 | 45 | |
LaHossBoss* | 45 | 2 | 41 | |
PicoFico | 45 | 2 | 45 | |
Bankrupt2019 | 46 | 2 | 46 | |
EW800 | 46 | 2 | 46 | |
sjt | 47 | 2 | 47 | |
Thomas_Thumb | 48 | 2 | 48 | |
jasonbourne84 | 49 | 2 | 49 | |
nwa479 | 49 | 2 | 49 | |
Trudy | 49 | 2 | 49 | |
iv | 52 | 2 | 52 | |
angelwingz | 53 | 2 | 53 | |
CassieCard | 53 | 2 | 53 | |
KLEXH25 | 53 | 2 | 53 | |
Credit4Growth | 54 | 2 | 54 | |
Face_Value | 54 | 2 | 54 | |
Flyingifr | 56 | 2 | 56 | |
kilroy8 | 56 | ? | 56 | |
mgood | 56 | 2 | 55 | |
TMB_ | 56 | 2 | 56 | |
CreditAggie | 57 | 2 | 56 | |
mrsgrits | 57 | 2 | 57 | |
Mr_Mojo_Risin | 58 | 2 | 54 | |
sarge12 | 58 | 2 | 58 | |
Chris865 [OP] | 59 | 2 | 52 | |
SENSITIVE [60-69] | ||||
joeyv1985 | 60 | 2 | 56 | |
coreysw12 | 61 | 2 | 60 | |
CreditObsessedinFL | 61 | 2 | 56 | |
NRB525 | 63 | 2 | 63 | |
Remedios | 63 | 2 | 63 | |
Dogbert* | 64 | 2 | 64 | |
OmarGB9 | 64 | 2 | 64 | |
SecretAzure | 64 | 2 | 64 | |
Birdman7 | 65 | 2 | 60 | |
Revelate | 65 | 2 | 63 | |
RehabbingANDBlabbing | 66 | 2 | 66 | |
thornback | 66 | 2 | 66 | |
CreditCuriosity* | 68 | 3 | 68 | |
Dumbee | 68 | 2 | 56 | |
jayk1 | 69 | ? | 69 | |
VERY SENSITIVE [70-99] | ||||
K-in-Boston* | 70 | 3 | 70 | |
Dmessina666* | 72 | 3 | 72 | |
GApeachy | 72 | 3 | 72 | |
jasonbourne84's DH | 72 | 3 | 72 | |
Kenro* | 72 | ? | 72 | |
Brian_Earl_Spilner* | 78 | 3 | 72 | |
GOLDEN CHALICE WINNER AND | ||||
Adkins | 80 | 3 | 80 |
* FORMER AWARD WINNERS * |
MEMBER NAME | AWARD | TROPHY | FOR | DATE |
Brian_Earl_Spilner | GOLDEN CHALICE | Lowest rating: 76 | ||
Brian_Earl_Spilner | GOLDEN SWORD | Record Low Rating: 76 | ||
CreditCuriosity | GOLDEN CHALICE | Lowest rating: 75 | ||
Dmessina666 | GOLDEN CHALICE | Lowest rating: 78 | ||
Dmessina666 | GOLDEN SWORD | Record Low Rating: 78 | ||
Dogbert | GOLDEN CHALICE | Lowest rating: 76 | ||
Dogbert | GOLDEN SWORD | Record Low Rating: 76 | ||
juggernaut9 | GOLD KEY | Highest Rating: 37 | ||
JWD1980 | GOLD KEY | Highest Rating: 40 | ||
K-in-Boston | GOLDEN CHALICE | Lowest rating: 73 | ||
Kenro | GOLDEN CHALICE | Lowest rating: 72 | ||
Kenro | GOLDEN SWORD | Record Low Rating: 72 | ||
LaHossBoss | GOLD KEY | Highest rating: 41 | ||
Lulah | GOLD KEY | Highest Rating: 37 | ||
Throckmorton's Wife | GOLD KEY | Highest Rating: 40 |
All awards are from this game: Adventure (1980) (Atari 2600) Level 3 play through
The Bat is awarded for best EQ 8 score with lowest Resilience Index score. The bat can fly away with any award - even a dragon!
Meet the creator of the Resilience Index.
Slight change again this month. No major changes, just paying down SL.
@Tonya-E wrote:Slight change again this month. No major changes, just paying down SL.
42 is pretty solid! I'm trying to make my way there, keep fluctuating between 54-58. Pesky score! 😅
I think Average Age of Revolving Accounts (AAoRA, yeah it's a thing alright) helped me this month with this score, because I can't explain it any other way. Unless my total credit limit being raised by $9,500 this month had something to do with it. Who knows how they segment this thing.
At 4-of-4 with $1807 in aggregate balance (6%), I had an EQ FRI of 56.
This time I'm at 4-of-4 with $1999 in aggregate balance (5%), and I get a EQ FRI of 54?(AAoRA = 1yr9mo, nothing else is a multiple of 3 either.)