@Anonymous wrote:Profile is always > score.
No two 600 scores are created equal, nor are two 700 scores, two 800 scores, etc.
While you can't judge a book (profile) by its cover (score), having a better cover can only create a better first impression. As we agree, it can only help, not hurt, regardless of the scoring model more or less.
What would you say is the best way to know if you have a strong profile? While score is one of the best if not the best indicator of profile strength, I believe we need another way to judge profile. Just like GPA is the best predictor of college success, SAT score helps a lot too.
Starting Score: Ex08-732,Eq08-713,Tu08-717
@Anonymous wrote:Really, all slices of the FICO pie need to be in check. It's possible to have a "perfect" score in terms of being able to secure the best interest rates on loans (760+ score, say) by not being perfect in any category. Even by failing in the most important category of payment history which makes up 35% of your score, one can still obtain 760 scores. I have a 120 day late payment on my TU report which makes me dirty on that bureau, yet my TU score is 768 because I'm pretty golden across the other sectors of the FICO pie. If you can fail with respect to the largest sector of the FICO pie and still come away with a 760+ score, no doubt you can fail with respect to the other slices of the pie and still have a score that good or better.
It then comes down to lender-specific criteria. Using the above example, all individuals that may be lacking in one area may have a 760 score. Various lenders may see these factors as being weighed differently specific to them. Some may be "inquiry sensitive" where others may be sensitive to new accounts or length of credit history. Others may weigh utilization more strongly, while some may hate the presence of any negative information. All you can really do is lots of homework and educate yourself on the lender that you're interested in to ensure your profile is a good match for what they generally prefer.
I would say it's better to be a little less than perfect in multiple areas than perfect in all but one area but that area is seriously lacking. This assuming both scenarios yield the same FICO scores. From my experience, people with all areas perfect except one slicelike serious lates, 90% utilization, ultra low ages, hundreds of new accounts and inquiries, tend to be more likely to be rejected and more likely to fail recon than people with a couple inquiries and new accounts, 29% utilization with 3 cards reporting, medium age of accounts, one old medical collection, etc. This is again assuming same exact scores. Although it's probably YMMV, my experience seems to support my generalization.
