The credit scores ARE bank-biased.

[Polonius]

All you folks are forgetting that you have to compare the SAME score to have any sort of a meaningful comparison. There are more than two dozen FICO models sold by Fair Isaac for different purposes. And in this case, one of the scores mentioned isn't even a FICO score.

CreditRetriever is a product of TransUnion marketed to landlords for credit checks. You can read about it at:

http://www.creditretriever.com

On this page:

http://www.creditretriever.com/products_credit.asp

I read the following:

"

Our scoring model was developed to balance:

• Occupancy and risk – you can accept more occupants while reducing your exposure to risk
• Accuracy and speed – you will receive accurate decisions in seconds, allowing you to select the best residents and reduce applicant flight
• Compliance and efficiency – you can help protect yourself against compliance claims by using our services"

---

In other words, the CreditRetriever score is a model developed by and sold by TransUnion to landlords and has nothing whatever to do with Fair Isaac FICO scoring models.

I don't know what model NMAC pulled from TransUnion for the auto loan, but it certainly wasn't the Credit Retriever score. There is a FICO score for automobile dealers, but I've got no idea if that is what NMAC pulled.

Anyway--remember that you can't compare apples and oranges. Different scoring models don't even use the same scale. (Top FICO number is 850--I've seen other models go to 950.)

[marty56]

LOL, the six pack abs photo was great.

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@Polonius wrote:

All you folks are forgetting that you have to compare the SAME score to have any sort of a meaningful comparison. There are more than two dozen FICO models sold by Fair Isaac for different purposes. And in this case, one of the scores mentioned isn't even a FICO score.

CreditRetriever is a product of TransUnion marketed to landlords for credit checks. You can read about it at:

http://www.creditretriever.com

On this page:

http://www.creditretriever.com/products_credit.asp

I read the following:

"

Our scoring model was developed to balance:

• Occupancy and risk – you can accept more occupants while reducing your exposure to risk
• Accuracy and speed – you will receive accurate decisions in seconds, allowing you to select the best residents and reduce applicant flight
• Compliance and efficiency – you can help protect yourself against compliance claims by using our services"

---

In other words, the CreditRetriever score is a model developed by and sold by TransUnion to landlords and has nothing whatever to do with Fair Isaac FICO scoring models.

I don't know what model NMAC pulled from TransUnion for the auto loan, but it certainly wasn't the Credit Retriever score. There is a FICO score for automobile dealers, but I've got no idea if that is what NMAC pulled.

Anyway--remember that you can't compare apples and oranges. Different scoring models don't even use the same scale. (Top FICO number is 850--I've seen other models go to 950.)

---

What you say is valid.  But two different models, even between automotive and rental, are not going to result in a 100 point disparity.  Pulling my FICO from myFICO reveals that the score from CreditRetriever is almost spot on, meaning the score did increase.  There is a bit of a variance...but nowhere near 100 points, more like 10.

[cobaltnv]

Any correlation between Fico and non-Fico scores is entirely accidental. DIfferent scoring models can and do differ by 100 pts. Comparing a Fico score to a non-Fico score is a waste of time. Trying to come up with scoring details of the FIco formula by looking at non-Fico scores is just going to confuse you (and others reading your posts).

[marty56]

---

@cobaltnv wrote:
Any correlation between Fico and non-Fico scores is entirely accidental.

---

I would say and unlucky.

[haulingthescoreup]

OP, it's very common for FICO scores to remain stagnant for what seems like forever. If your AAoA or your longest history just recently moved into the next higher tier, if you have no lates, or if you have serious lates that aren't falling off yet, if your util remains level, then there are no changes in your credit significant enough to trigger a score change. There isn't a steadily increasing set of points that go with gradual decreases in util or increases in age --util has to change to a certain percentage, or the number of years has to move into a new tier (5 years or above, 8 years or above, and so forth.)

I'm pretty much at this spot now. There won't be any additional changes unless I can get my serious derog off, or until my AAoA hits 5 years (between 7 and 11 months, depending on the credit report.)

And yes, a new late is devastating --typically 50 points. That's because the FICO scoring formulae are attempting to predict risk. If you suddenly have a late payment, you are much, much riskier than when you were just trudging along.

[fishbjc]

TXJOHN:  Who gave you permission to post a picture of my husband on here?

[Anonymous]

LOL

[wndrwmn78]

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:
OP, it's very common for FICO scores to remain stagnant for what seems like forever. If your AAoA or your longest history just recently moved into the next higher tier, if you have no lates, or if you have serious lates that aren't falling off yet, if your util remains level, then there are no changes in your credit significant enough to trigger a score change. There isn't a steadily increasing set of points that go with gradual decreases in util or increases in age --util has to change to a certain percentage, or the number of years has to move into a new tier (5 years or above, 8 years or above, and so forth.)

I'm pretty much at this spot now. There won't be any additional changes unless I can get my serious derog off, or until my AAoA hits 5 years (between 7 and 11 months, depending on the credit report.)

And yes, a new late is devastating --typically 50 points. That's because the FICO scoring formulae are attempting to predict risk. If you suddenly have a late payment, you are much, much riskier than when you were just trudging along.

---

Thanks for posting that, hauling...I was wondering if 5 years was a golden point. My AAoA is also around yours, 4 years and 3 months. If only I had found this place a month sooner and hadn't gotten my stinkin' Juniper card in March! I would have been at 5 years if not already, very soon.

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@cobaltnv wrote:
Any correlation between Fico and non-Fico scores is entirely accidental. DIfferent scoring models can and do differ by 100 pts. Comparing a Fico score to a non-Fico score is a waste of time. Trying to come up with scoring details of the FIco formula by looking at non-Fico scores is just going to confuse you (and others reading your posts).

---

The bottom line is that the score increased by 100 points, and the only...ONLY action that could have triggered such a substantial increase, is the addition of NMAC.  Period.  The aging accounts would not have been it - the longest account is well over 10 years now and would not have been affected by a two month span of transactions.

No...the scoring is giving preference to NMAC versus a subprime lender.  And that's fine...but I really wish the bureaus would be subject to disclosure on those matters.