practical value of a huge credit limit?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

JLK93, what part of TT's posts above are you not following or disagreeing with? 

CGID, TT's post above sort of sheds a little light on a question you were asking earlier in this thread the other day.  You basically posed the question of how someone would be able to tell if their monster credit line was included into aggregate utilization when more often than not based on aggregate utilization percentage there wouldn't be a significant difference regardless.  Basically, a $1000 balance on $50k in total credit lines is 2% aggregate utilization and a $1000 balance on $100k in total credit lines (assuming another $50k credit line isn't counted into the equation) is 1% AU.  From what we know, there wouldn't be a scoring difference here at all.  However, in looking at the myFICO data provided, this example would show us a difference of 1% verses 2% aggregate utilization if the single $50k line of credit wasn't included. 

---

BBS -

Pasted below is a consolidated summary. One reason I believe my AU card counts in earlier Fico models (but not Fico 08 due to the anti abuse policy kicking in) is the older Fico 04 and Fico 98 scores staying the same [or increasing] on 8/6 relative to 7/23. Fico scores should be increasing due to fewer cards reporting and lower utilization on 8/6 ... unless something else (no recent revolving credit use, 0% Ag UT) has an overriding negative impact - as shown with Fico 08.

I excluded Classic Fico 08 scores as they did not change (due to the sizeable 850 buffer I appear to have)

Interesting side note: A review of before/after EQ AUTO and Bankcard Fico 04 scores again shows how much EQ factors in card count with balances in scoring relative to TU Fico 04.

[JLK93]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

JLK93, what part of TT's posts above are you not following or disagreeing with? 

CGID, TT's post above sort of sheds a little light on a question you were asking earlier in this thread the other day.  You basically posed the question of how someone would be able to tell if their monster credit line was included into aggregate utilization when more often than not based on aggregate utilization percentage there wouldn't be a significant difference regardless.  Basically, a $1000 balance on $50k in total credit lines is 2% aggregate utilization and a $1000 balance on $100k in total credit lines (assuming another $50k credit line isn't counted into the equation) is 1% AU.  From what we know, there wouldn't be a scoring difference here at all.  However, in looking at the myFICO data provided, this example would show us a difference of 1% verses 2% aggregate utilization if the single $50k line of credit wasn't included. 

---

We know from cashnocredit's experiments that Amex charge card balances are included in aggregate utilization by EQ FICO 8. TT seems to be getting his information from the myFICO. The myFICO credit monitoring service is a consumer product. If, what the consumer product tells us conflicts with real world data, it doesn't make sense to favor the consumer product over the data.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@JLK93 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

JLK93, what part of TT's posts above are you not following or disagreeing with? 

CGID, TT's post above sort of sheds a little light on a question you were asking earlier in this thread the other day.  You basically posed the question of how someone would be able to tell if their monster credit line was included into aggregate utilization when more often than not based on aggregate utilization percentage there wouldn't be a significant difference regardless.  Basically, a $1000 balance on $50k in total credit lines is 2% aggregate utilization and a $1000 balance on $100k in total credit lines (assuming another $50k credit line isn't counted into the equation) is 1% AU.  From what we know, there wouldn't be a scoring difference here at all.  However, in looking at the myFICO data provided, this example would show us a difference of 1% verses 2% aggregate utilization if the single $50k line of credit wasn't included. 

---

We know from cashnocredit's experiments that Amex charge card balances are included in aggregate utilization by EQ FICO 8 as long as the high balanced is less than 50K. TT seems to be getting his information from the myFICO. The myFICO credit monitoring service is a consumer product. If, what the consumer product tells us conflicts with real world data, it doesn't make sense to favor the consumer product over the data.

---

I have never done MyFICO 3B credit monitoring. The data is all taken from purchased 3B reports. Perhaps you are suggesting scores on 3B reports are incorrect as well?

Reason statements on 3B reports are derived from Fico as are scores.

[JLK93]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@JLK93 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

JLK93, what part of TT's posts above are you not following or disagreeing with? 

CGID, TT's post above sort of sheds a little light on a question you were asking earlier in this thread the other day.  You basically posed the question of how someone would be able to tell if their monster credit line was included into aggregate utilization when more often than not based on aggregate utilization percentage there wouldn't be a significant difference regardless.  Basically, a $1000 balance on $50k in total credit lines is 2% aggregate utilization and a $1000 balance on $100k in total credit lines (assuming another $50k credit line isn't counted into the equation) is 1% AU.  From what we know, there wouldn't be a scoring difference here at all.  However, in looking at the myFICO data provided, this example would show us a difference of 1% verses 2% aggregate utilization if the single $50k line of credit wasn't included. 

---

We know from cashnocredit's experiments that Amex charge card balances are included in aggregate utilization by EQ FICO 8 as long as the high balanced is less than 50K. TT seems to be getting his information from the myFICO. The myFICO credit monitoring service is a consumer product. If, what the consumer product tells us conflicts with real world data, it doesn't make sense to favor the consumer product over the data.

---

I have never done MyFICO 3B credit monitoring. The data is all frtom purchased 3B reports. Perhaps you are suggesting scores on 3B reports are incorrect as well?

Reason statements on 3B reports are derived from Fico as are scores.

---

It is still a consumer product. You seem to be basing your conclusion that Amex charge card balances are not included in aggregate utilization by EQ FICO 8 on the fact that the myFICO website tells you that it is not included in your aggregate utilization. There is no way you can know how the algorithm treats Amex charge card balances based on any information provided by a consumer product.

Of course the 3B scores are correct. Your scores don't negate the real world data. Many people have let only an Amex charge card report a balance and had their scores drop. That doesn't somehow contradict the fact that cashnocredit's Amex charge card balances were scored by EQ FICO 8. You seem to by trying to apply data from one scoring event to another scoring event. That doesn't follow. 

Reasons codes can be interesting if they back up real world data. The reason codes can't be used to disprove real world data. The reason codes were created to assist banks with regulatory compliance. That is as far as it goes. They were never intended to provide absolute proof to consumers of the secrets of the algorithms.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Conclusion is primarily based on change in Fico scores supported by reason statement and Ag UT%. As mentioned, the Fico 08 scores all dropped but the older Fico scores all stayed the same or increased. The reason for the drop in Fico 08 is no revolving credit utilization showing.The reason for scores not dropping on older Fico models is AU card is factoring into utilization.

Are scores on consumer reports valid? If so, why did the scores change as they did?

All the data is there for review.

[JLK93]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Conclusion is primarily based on change in Fico scores supported by reason statement and Ag UT%. As mentioned, the Fico 08 scores all dropped but the older Fico scores all stayed the same or increased. The reason for the drop in Fico 08 is no revolving credit utilization showing.The reason for scores not dropping on older Fico models is AU card is factoring into utilization.

Are scores on consumer reports valid? If so, why did the scores change as they did?

All the data is there for review.

---

Exactly what part of cashnocredit's data do you disagree with?

[Thomas_Thumb]

Why the change in subject? My question was - explain the above data with a supporting hypothesis.

There are a lot of force fitting assumptions" regarding impact of inquiries, individual card utilization thresholds, #/% of cards reporting balances and how scores must be impacted regardless of scorecard or profile. As I recall, up until recently, you had a different view on inquiry count and impact on score with Fico 08.

Do I believe all charge cards, even AMEX, are coded the same on everyones reports - No. Do most AMEX charge cards include a pay over time feature - I suspect yes as AMEX is pushing that. How is a pay over time feature on a charge card different than a credit card? It basically turns the charge card into a revolver. If a charge card has no pay over time feature, it's not a revolver.

In any event, the question here is what drove the 3B score changes between July and August? 

P.S. The observed results on the 3B reports actually require me to draw the conclusions stated above as I have no other explanations that support the data sets. Sometimes, if pre-existing hypothesis don't agree with new data, the prior conclusions may need to be reviewed for rigor and valid universal extrapolation across all CRAs, scorecards, profiles and charge card classifications.

[JLK93]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Why the chjange in subject? My question was - explain the above data with a supporting hypothesis. 

---

I'm not changing the subject. I mentioned that cashnocredit's experiments had shown that EQ FICO 8 factors Amex charge card balances in the utilization calculation. You disagreed. Since then, you have continuously avoided addressing the strength of his data.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Of course, that's not my point - is it?

The point is this data set and what it suggests - which is what I am discussing. So getting sidetracked into some other arguement at this time is a non value add moot point - IMO.

[Anonymous]

JLK93, it would seem that cashnocredit and TT simply have opposing data sets to some degree.  It doesn't necessarily mean that either is "wrong" just that they are different.  This wouldn't be the first time we've come across this on the forum, that's for sure.