Just contacted Chase today and they confirmed they do not use FICO scores but instead use their own internal scoring. Their scoring must be more harsh on age than FICO is. Moral of the story is that a 760 FICO score means nothing and these FICO score tricks we all implement may have less effect that we previously thought they did on our approval chances for cards. Oh yeah the score Chase pulled was 751.
Starting Score: Ex08-732,Eq08-713,Tu08-717
@Anonymous wrote:
Are you speaking with respect to just Chase or is that a blanket statement across the board? Just because chase uses their own internal scoring method doesn't mean that gaming isn't still very beneficial... And there's no way to know of the common gaming techniques that work for FICO scoring help at all with chase. I highly doubt they hurt, though.
I mean in general across the board. I guess gaming techniques do help a little and I'm sure they won't hurt. They are worth doing however I would advise people not to get rely on inflated FICO scores to assume certain approval chances or rates. If someone inflated his 710 FICO score to 760 using SSL and AZEO, he/she should not come in expecting the best rates and almost certain approvals associated with 760 FICO gained through natural behavior. He/she could expect a higher chances and higher rates than 710 but below 760. In this case, that person should not apply for cards that datapoints suggest requires at least 1 year history like with CHASE, BOA, Citi if he doesn't have 1 year history like I did. I knew that Chase looks for 1 year history but I arrogantly assumed that my 750+ FICO would overcome that. Had I known Chase would use their own scoring algorithm, I would not have applied and wasted the inquiry. Thankfully only 1 bureau was inquired through careful planning. By careful planning, I did not in fact freeze my CRA because that would cost $5 but I'm not sure if what I did would be considered against ToS here on myFICO so I won't elaborate on how I did it.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Subexistence wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Are you speaking with respect to just Chase or is that a blanket statement across the board? Just because chase uses their own internal scoring method doesn't mean that gaming isn't still very beneficial... And there's no way to know of the common gaming techniques that work for FICO scoring help at all with chase. I highly doubt they hurt, though.I mean in general across the board. I guess gaming techniques do help a little and I'm sure they won't hurt. They are worth doing however I would advise people not to get rely on inflated FICO scores to assume certain approval chances or rates. If someone inflated his 710 FICO score to 760 using SSL and AZEO, he/she should not come in expecting the best rates and almost certain approvals associated with 760 FICO gained through natural behavior. He/she could expect a higher chances and higher rates than 710 but below 760. In this case, that person should not apply for cards that datapoints suggest requires at least 1 year history like with CHASE, BOA, Citi if he doesn't have 1 year history like I did. I knew that Chase looks for 1 year history but I arrogantly assumed that my 750+ FICO would overcome that. Had I known Chase would use their own scoring algorithm, I would not have applied and wasted the inquiry. Thankfully only 1 bureau was inquired through careful planning. By careful planning, I did not in fact freeze my CRA because that would cost $5 but I'm not sure if what I did would be considered against ToS here on myFICO so I won't elaborate on how I did it.
That's really not true and you are making a broad statement that does not apply to many who apply for Chase. Chase uses many different score models and just because Rep A B or C says so does not mean that is true. Having a somewhat inflated credit score can actually help you get much better rates at smaller lending institutions that base the RBP solely on a Fico score. For example CapEd credit union that requires a EXP fico of 720+ for their best rates. This statement doesn't apply to larger lenders that have the resources to develope a much more complex algorithim to detirmine the APR using RBP.
Ok well I admit I don't know the specifics for Chase.'
I understand that some lenders use FICO and others use other models.
http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/Who-uses-FICO08/m-p/5031212
As heavenOhio stated in that thread, Barclays uses FICO scores, and of course I got approved. This is despite the reputation that Barclays is hard to crack.
I also managed to get Amex at 6 months due to them using FICO score which I gamed.
Inflating my profile certainly helped with those 2 cards.
Other than in the area of Chase scoring methods, I don't think we disagree.
@Anonymous wrote:Sub, I disagree completely with your last post.
Everyone on this board knows that credit profile is more meaningful than score, although score is usually pretty indicative of credit profile. If someone gets denied with a 750-760 score and the reason for denial is short credit history, it's not the gaming techniques employed that mattered at all here it's the profile... that is, the short credit history. Different creditors have different "rules" and it's our job as the customer to adequately research the ins and outs of these things before apping to ensure we have extensive knowledge surrounding our approval/denial chances. "Gaming" or scores that are greater due to different credit behaviors has nothing to do with this.
Since the discussion involves Chase, take the 5/24 rule. Someone could have an 830-850 score, but be at 6/24 and if they app for a major Chase product they'll be denied. Maybe without gaming techniques this person is sitting at 780-810, but they'd be denied regardless. Conversely, take someone with a much weaker overall profile with a 650 score but they're at 3/24 and they get approved for the same product. Go figure.
You can also have someone with 800+ scores that gets denied for too many inquiries and any number of other reasons.
Score will never be bigger than credit profile and/or allow someone to bypass "rules" that different creditors have in place.
Could you explain why you disagree completely? Although I didn't mention it explicitly, I meant to imply that someone with a 710 who used gaming techniques to get 760 has a weak profile that generated an artifically high score. Internal algorithms therefore tend to deny this weak profile because they didn't use the FICO score directly. In
I'm trying to say gaming doesn't make a weak profile into a strong profile. It could simply make a weak profile give off a strong score that isn't reliable.
I applied to AARP card which doesn't fall under 5/24 as stated by DoC. In any case, I don't disagree with these rules like 5/24 or CO's 6 month rule. Regardless of score or profile, those rules still hold.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Subexistence wrote:Could you explain why you disagree completely? Although I didn't mention it explicitly, I meant to imply that someone with a 710 who used gaming techniques to get 760 has a weak profile that generated an artifically high score. Internal algorithms therefore tend to deny this weak profile because they didn't use the FICO score directly. In
I'm trying to say gaming doesn't make a weak profile into a strong profile. It could simply make a weak profile give off a strong score that isn't reliable.
I applied to AARP card which doesn't fall under 5/24 as stated by DoC. In any case, I don't disagree with these rules like 5/24 or CO's 6 month rule. Regardless of score or profile, those rules still hold.
How many lenders do you know of outside of the previously referenced Chase that don't use FICO scores and only use internal scoring models? Unless you can rattle off a bunch, it sounds to me like your post is mostly targeted at Chase? You don't even know that the internal scoring model that Chase uses doesn't see any benefit to gaming techniques such as the SSL technique or AZEO, you're just assuming that. Score still means a lot when it comes to apping, so an additional 50 points even if you label them as "artificial" are still going to be more beneficial 10 times out of 10 than they are a hinderance.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Subexistence wrote:Could you explain why you disagree completely? Although I didn't mention it explicitly, I meant to imply that someone with a 710 who used gaming techniques to get 760 has a weak profile that generated an artifically high score. Internal algorithms therefore tend to deny this weak profile because they didn't use the FICO score directly. In
I'm trying to say gaming doesn't make a weak profile into a strong profile. It could simply make a weak profile give off a strong score that isn't reliable.
I applied to AARP card which doesn't fall under 5/24 as stated by DoC. In any case, I don't disagree with these rules like 5/24 or CO's 6 month rule. Regardless of score or profile, those rules still hold.
How many lenders do you know of outside of the previously referenced Chase that don't use FICO scores and only use internal scoring models? Unless you can rattle off a bunch, it sounds to me like your post is mostly targeted at Chase? You don't even know that the internal scoring model that Chase uses doesn't see any benefit to gaming techniques such as the SSL technique or AZEO, you're just assuming that. Score still means a lot when it comes to apping, so an additional 50 points even if you label them as "artificial" are still going to be more beneficial 10 times out of 10 than they are a hinderance.
Maybe a lot use FICO scores but not FICO08 scores which are the ones we tend to game. I saw posts about capital one using some older FICO model. I think it was FICO 5 but not sure. I think NFCU and alliant use FICO 9. Penfed uses Nextgen2 and I think DCU uses FICO 4. I suspect NASA uses EX98. I think Amex also uses internal combined with EX08. AZEO and SSL do help with all those other models so when one games FICO08, they are benefitting but not as much as their FICO08 score suggests for those banks. I know the old mortgage models benefit from AZEO, however I'm trying to say that seeing these techniques boost one's score on 08 model by 50 points doesn't equate to 50 points boost on other models so one should be careful.
I believe you have switched a stance from saying it's profile that matters and the score isn't that important when it comes to rules into FICO08score matters a lot.
I agree that one should continue to use these techniques and I'm more than certain they're beneficial 9 out of 10 times. However just because they are beneficial doesn't mean they are as beneficial as your FICO08 score makes them out to be.