@oilcan12 wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
Congratulations, impressive scores.
Would be curious to see a side by side comparison of all Fico 08 classic/enhanced scores to Fico 09 by CRA. Might be helpful in looking at scoring differences between the models.
Other than inquiry QTY, is anything else in your file that Fico 09 may be scoring differently than Fico 08? (# cards reporting, utilization %, installment loans open/closed).
It seems like the scoring of inquiries is the most significant difference between Fico 8 and 9 for my profile. I have an installment loan paid down 90% that is boosting both Fico 8 and 9. My utilization is very low. Utilization is below 1% overall and much less than 5% on any card. I only have 2 or 3 cards out of 36 reporting balances, so I don't think that is a factor. Scoring of AAoA could possibly be somewhat different between Fico 8 and 9. It is possible that the 9.8 year AAoA on my EX and EQ reports and the 10 year AAoA on TU is a bigger factor on Fico 9 that Fico 8.
I have 1 account that is 5 months old. It will be interesting to see how in affects Fico 8 and 9 when it reaches 6 months.
I have 8 accounts that are less than 1 year old.
Experian
AAoA 9 years 9 months
9 inquiries in last year
Fico 8 Fico 9
Fico Classic 819 850
Auto Enhanced 821 864
Bankcard Enhanced 865 871
Equifax
AAoA 9 years 9 months
3 inquiries in last year
Fico 8 Fico 9
Fico Classic 839 850
Auto Enhanced 842 877
Bankcard Enhanced 864 877
Transunion
AAoA 10 years
0 inquiries in last year
Fico 8 Fico 9
Fico Classic 849 850
Auto Enhanced 876 889
Bankcard Enhanced 889 890
Thanks for the data. My enhanced scores reacted opposite of yours. I agree with your hypothesis that Fico 09 likely puts less weight (fewer points) on inquiries than Fico 08. That typically means increased weight (more points) allocated to another factor. I suspect increased weight is going toward revolving accounts in general and # revolvers reporting a balance in particular. Individual account utilization % may be receiving added weight as well.
Note: Fico 09 has added a 13th scorecard and it specifically states this card is allocated toward segmentation of revolving debt.
Side note: As I recall Fico 08 score summaries state high achievers have 3 or less revolvers reporting a balance. I saw a drop (in Fico 08 enhanced scores) going from 3 => 4 cards, no drop 4 => 5 cards & drop 5 => 6 cards. Aggregate utilization held under 4% in all cases.
Shown below is a side by side comparison of Fico 08 and Fico 09 enhanced scores I put together using your data and data from a 2nd source.
Fico Model EQ Score TU Score EX Score EQ Score TU Score EX Score # inquiries 3 0 9 0 0 0 # cards Reporting bal 2 or 3 2 or 3 2 or 3 6 of 6 6 of 6 6 of 6 Auto 09 877 889 864 867 871 881 Auto 08 842 876 821 874 879 883 Diff (09 - 08) 35 13 43 -7 -8 -2 Bankcard 09 877 890 871 867 869 873 Bankcard 08 864 889 855 874 880 895 Diff (09 - 08) 13 1 16 -7 -11 -22 Thanks for the comparison and information. I have zero data points as to the effect the number of cards reporting has on Fico 08 enhanced scores. I've never seen my Fico 08 "classic" scores affected by less than approximately 5 or 6 cards reporting balances. I would imagine that the total number of cards is relevant. For example, 6 out of 6 would probably have a different effect than 6 out of 36.
I did actually just find a data point regarding # of cards reporting and enhanced scores.
For the scores I reported above, I actually had 2 cards reporting balances on EX and EQ and 4 cards reporting balances on TU. I just checked a TU report from December. That report had 2 cards reporting balances. The TU 08 enhanced scores with 2 cards reporting balances were identical to scores with 4 cards reporting balances.
So, for my profile it appears that more that 4 cards reporting balances is necessary to affect TU 08 enhanced scores.
