Interesting one here, negative reason statement pictured below. In reading it, to me it sounds like utilization increased across a threshold. What really happened though (IMO) is that I was dinged for number of accounts with a balance. To me, the pictured reason statement is sort of bogus. I find the Fico reason statement that actually says number of accounts with a balance too high to be much more accurate.
In order to generate the statement you see, I went from 2 of 7 accounts with a reported balance to 4 of 7 accounts with a reported balance. When I was at 2 of 7 accounts with a balance, those 2 accounts were at .005% utilization and .002% utilization. Aggregate utilization was at .0009%. The two new reported balances landed each of those accounts at .003% utilization and .02% utilization, bringing aggregate utilization up to .002%. This change resulted in a 4 point drop on TU VS4.
So, do we agree that my number of accounts with a balance was likely the cause here, or was some sort of threshold crossed?
Looking at dollars outside of percentages, my first two reported balances were $67 and $137 and my second two balances were $28 and $196. Maybe it's got something to do with dollars... like a second account with a >$100 balance reported? That's all I can think of.
@AndySoCal wrote:@Anonymous
I did a little research this appears to be vantage score reason code and not FICO. See link below
https://www.reasoncode.org/code/898/45/not-enough-balance-paid-down-over-time-retail-accounts
Am I missing something?
Just the thread title. 
That reason code sounds like more than one month is being reviewed instead of just a snapshot in time. Could VS4 be similar to what FICO 10 is forecast to be?
