@TheKid2 wrote:You have valid points and it's obvious that the playing field is tilted to the those with mature credit histories. But, I don't think we can call it unfair because that's their reference for how much debt you're carrying. Each month the creditors are expected to report a balance. You're paying your bills on time every month, you will gain points as the accounts age, you will get CLIs to lower utilization percentage, you will get more points for that. It's definitely a long game right now.
To your point, it will be interesting to see how the new 10 models behave. Some analysis on utilization "memory" is baked in. Are your 10s your hightest scores?
P.S Making multiple payments over the course of the month will lower your interest owed. It is a money saving strategy and it helps your scores.
I'm rebuilding, but I make mulitple payments each month and don't pay interest. I use my credit cards as if they were my debit card and put 95% of my expenditures on them but only spend what I already have money for. Regarding my highest scores, with my last reports showing very low utilization (2% and 0% on my 2 cards) my FICO 9 scores were highest (I didn't post bankcard scores but 9 bankcard is my highest overall and above my regular 9 scores while that's not the case for most other models).
8: EQ 659, TU 656, EX 663
9: EQ 689, TU 679, EX 688
10:EQ 661, TU 667, EX 659
10T: EQ 682, TU 684 EX 672
FICO 10, and 10T really seem to like extremely low reported balances. The difference between 5%, 0%, 4% agr with 2 cards in June and 2%, 0%, 1% agr for Aug (July wasn't AZEO at 10%, 6%, 9% agr) was 10-20pts on 10 (20 on EQ). Meanwhile 10T was 14-28pts. I'm kinda mind blown how 2% on my AZEO card made a 28pt increase EQ 10T in Aug over 5% in my June scores on EQ 10T with the non AZEO blip in between. I'm not really sure how the trended data works on 10T but it's crazy sensitive to extremely low versus low utilization (meanwhile my TU 8 doesn't move at all for the differences in the last 3 months.
@Remedios wrote:
@Zoostation1 wrote:
@TheKid2 wrote:You have valid points and it's obvious that the playing field is tilted to the those with mature credit histories. But, I don't think we can call it unfair because that's their reference for how much debt you're carrying. Each month the creditors are expected to report a balance. You're paying your bills on time every month, you will gain points as the accounts age, you will get CLIs to lower utilization percentage, you will get more points for that. It's definitely a long game right now.
To your point, it will be interesting to see how the new 10 models behave. Some analysis on utilization "memory" is baked in. Are your 10s your hightest scores?
P.S Making multiple payments over the course of the month will lower your interest owed. It is a money saving strategy and it helps your scores.
I'm rebuilding, but I make mulitple payments each month and don't pay interest. I use my credit cards as if they were my debit card and put 95% of my expenditures on them but only spend what I already have money for. Regarding my highest scores, with my last reports showing very low utilization (2% and 0% on my 2 cards) my FICO 9 scores were highest (I didn't post bankcard scores but 9 bankcard is my highest overall and above my regular 9 scores while that's not the case for most other models).
8: EQ 659, TU 656, EX 663
9: EQ 689, TU 679, EX 688
10:EQ 661, TU 667, EX 659
10T: EQ 682, TU 684 EX 672
FICO 10, and 10T really seem to like extremely low reported balances. The difference between 5%, 0%, 4% agr with 2 cards in June and 2%, 0%, 1% agr for Aug (July wasn't AZEO at 10%, 6%, 9% agr) was 10-20pts on 10 (20 on EQ). Meanwhile 10T was 14-28pts. I'm kinda mind blown how 2% on my AZEO card made a 28pt increase EQ 10T in Aug over 5% in my June scores on EQ 10T with the non AZEO blip in between. I'm not really sure how the trended data works on 10T but it's crazy sensitive to extremely low versus low utilization (meanwhile my TU 8 doesn't move at all for the differences in the last 3 months.
Utilization plays different (bigger) role on dirty profiles. Swings you are seeing with TD are basically "They are back at it again"
My 10T doesn't move that much with utilization changes you described above.
There is a threshold when going above 4% aggregate, but it results in small difference for me, maybe 2 points, nothing like going over 9%. Since your file is dirty, might be more for you.
Also, while Fair Isaac is calling this Trended Data, it's not real trended data because lenders aren't reporting it, scoring algorithm is extrapolating from available information based on balances in the past 2 years.
It's fairly accurate, but no cigar.
My 10TD is higher than Fico 8, and very close to Fico 9. Smaller variances between three Fico 10T classic scores than differences between 8 classic.
I want to pull my hair out sometimes cause it still feels like I need to micromanage things if I want a CLI (to make indivitual utilization low) or to have a decent enough score to get approved for something better than credit one level to help aggregate util and for better rewards. Having dealt with debit card fraud on more than one occasion now that I'm using CCs again I prefer to use them for as many of my transactions as I can, through from a scoring perspective it seems like it might be a lot easier to just put a few small recurring bills on my cards and pay off one in advance and let the other report just my HBO max or whatever recurring bill it is. That being said I don't intend to do that and plan to keep using them for almost everything and just playing the game for statement closing. I've recently requested to move my due date up 5 days on one card so that way it'll be easier to AZEO (previously one card closed on the 25th every month and the other was betweeen 23rd-26th based on number of days in the month). Going forward that 25th close will be the 20th.
@ThomasJNewton wrote:
@Anonymalous wrote:
Yes, but the underlying criticism is based on a deeper mismatch, because the models are operating on limited data. The argument @Zoostation1 is making is that people who pay off their balance every month are low risk.I understood what he was saying and what his argument was, I am simply saying is that since he has no data, he has no idea if what he is saying is correct or not. Seems logical, but maybe there a difference between people who pay off their balances every month and then do not charge a lot before the statement closes and those who do. I do not have the data and would not even begin to guess what the result would be if the data were there.
While the data doesn't show it, it's not because the argument is wrong. It's because the data simply isn't available.
My argument is not that he might not be right, it is that he has made statements that may not just be unsupported, but might be wrong. His statement was not "I do not think that there is a difference between these groups of people." but that there is no difference. One of the most interesting things that comes out when looking at giant data sets, is that correlations emerge that were completely unexpected. It is possible that he is right, that they are the same, but it is just as possible that he is wrong and that the behavior will continue to correlate even with more data.
The credit models are based on information reported by lenders, which only contains the balance at a particular moment in time (typically when the statement closes, but not always), and some secondary data like the highest balance over a period. It doesn't capure whether people are paying in full every month, or just the minimum balance.
Yep, you are right that is the data the modelers get. That does not mean that the model will change substantially if they had more data. It might, but the behavior of late charges may really be the correlation, not the running balance. I do not claim to know, but I do state that he has no way of knowing either, and yet he makes the claim that he does.
So while the risk assessment is based on correlations in large sets of data, in a lot of cases it's inferring behavior based on secondary evidence that's only loosely correlated to the underlying causes. So there will be mismatches, or cases where people who consistently behave in a responsible way are punished by the system, and where people who are higher risk are able to game the system for better results.
The models make no claims about causation at all, so you are correct the correlations may not be correctly capturing the causes. I am sure that there are people who just have the bad luck to behave like people who are likely to default and will be treated worse then they otherwise might be if the models had more data. It is also clear to anyone who reads these boards that it is easy to game the system if one understands the rules. I guarantee you that the latter group is a tiny percentage (or the models would need to change to take them into account), but I have no idea (nor do you :-) ), how big the former group is. Maybe it is large, maybe it is tiny (or non-existent). No way for us to know at this moment.
That's why I think credit education is important, and why it's also best to treat it as a bit of a game. Because being responsible doesn't mean everyone else will automatically know I'm responsible. So it's up to me to prove it. And if I know the basic rules they use to measure responsibility, I can take the necessary steps to make sure I'm presented in a positive light. A good credit score becomes a badge or a credential, instead of 3 digit scarlet letter.
If by credit education, you mean making sure people understand how much interest costs, and the downsides of borrowing money using them, I agree. If you mean explaining how the scoring system works and teaching them to game it, all that will result it a different system with different rules. :-D
A lot of the objections seem to be based on a visceral sense of unfairness. And they're absolutely correct, it's not fair if you have the expectation that the system will correct asses everyone based on their essential characteristics.
It is only correct that it is unfair if one can show that in the aggregate, the system discriminates unfairly against a group of people. People keep asserting that is true with no evidence to support their case. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but knowing how these models are built, I am not willing to assert they are unfair, nor take anyone else's assertion without evidence to support it.
But when I see as more of a game, it doesn't have to be fair in some cosmic sense. If it's just a pseudo-arbitrary set of rules, then the rules aren't really saying anything about me as a person, and fairness is determined by whether the rules are consistently applied.
The score only says one thing about people: You behave in a manner consistent on the aggregate with other people who share your score. It does not say you are good or bad, nor that you are honest or dishonest. To view it as if people's behavior credit behavior was based on conscious choices like that of people on here who spend their time trying to game the system is just not reasonable.
You're right that I don't have any hard data to back up a lot of my thoughts and views. TBH I'm not convinced future models will ever in my lifetime have enough data to differentiate those who carry balances month to month paying interest and those who show the same balances each statement but PIF. I'm convinced that there's a significant difference in the long term outcomes between them but we'll likely never find out.
@Zoostation1 wrote:
@Remedios wrote:
@Zoostation1 wrote:
@TheKid2 wrote:You have valid points and it's obvious that the playing field is tilted to the those with mature credit histories. But, I don't think we can call it unfair because that's their reference for how much debt you're carrying. Each month the creditors are expected to report a balance. You're paying your bills on time every month, you will gain points as the accounts age, you will get CLIs to lower utilization percentage, you will get more points for that. It's definitely a long game right now.
To your point, it will be interesting to see how the new 10 models behave. Some analysis on utilization "memory" is baked in. Are your 10s your hightest scores?
P.S Making multiple payments over the course of the month will lower your interest owed. It is a money saving strategy and it helps your scores.
I'm rebuilding, but I make mulitple payments each month and don't pay interest. I use my credit cards as if they were my debit card and put 95% of my expenditures on them but only spend what I already have money for. Regarding my highest scores, with my last reports showing very low utilization (2% and 0% on my 2 cards) my FICO 9 scores were highest (I didn't post bankcard scores but 9 bankcard is my highest overall and above my regular 9 scores while that's not the case for most other models).
8: EQ 659, TU 656, EX 663
9: EQ 689, TU 679, EX 688
10:EQ 661, TU 667, EX 659
10T: EQ 682, TU 684 EX 672
FICO 10, and 10T really seem to like extremely low reported balances. The difference between 5%, 0%, 4% agr with 2 cards in June and 2%, 0%, 1% agr for Aug (July wasn't AZEO at 10%, 6%, 9% agr) was 10-20pts on 10 (20 on EQ). Meanwhile 10T was 14-28pts. I'm kinda mind blown how 2% on my AZEO card made a 28pt increase EQ 10T in Aug over 5% in my June scores on EQ 10T with the non AZEO blip in between. I'm not really sure how the trended data works on 10T but it's crazy sensitive to extremely low versus low utilization (meanwhile my TU 8 doesn't move at all for the differences in the last 3 months.
Utilization plays different (bigger) role on dirty profiles. Swings you are seeing with TD are basically "They are back at it again"
My 10T doesn't move that much with utilization changes you described above.
There is a threshold when going above 4% aggregate, but it results in small difference for me, maybe 2 points, nothing like going over 9%. Since your file is dirty, might be more for you.
Also, while Fair Isaac is calling this Trended Data, it's not real trended data because lenders aren't reporting it, scoring algorithm is extrapolating from available information based on balances in the past 2 years.
It's fairly accurate, but no cigar.
My 10TD is higher than Fico 8, and very close to Fico 9. Smaller variances between three Fico 10T classic scores than differences between 8 classic.
I want to pull my hair out sometimes cause it still feels like I need to micromanage things if I want a CLI (to make indivitual utilization low) or to have a decent enough score to get approved for something better than credit one level to help aggregate util and for better rewards. Having dealt with debit card fraud on more than one occasion now that I'm using CCs again I prefer to use them for as many of my transactions as I can, through from a scoring perspective it seems like it might be a lot easier to just put a few small recurring bills on my cards and pay off one in advance and let the other report just my HBO max or whatever recurring bill it is. That being said I don't intend to do that and plan to keep using them for almost everything and just playing the game for statement closing. I've recently requested to move my due date up 5 days on one card so that way it'll be easier to AZEO (previously one card closed on the 25th every month and the other was betweeen 23rd-26th based on number of days in the month). Going forward that 25th close will be the 20th.
I should have thought of this approach sooner. Moving due dates would make it a world easier to peak when I'm interested in applying for something. I find myself settling for a slightly lower score because I can't nail AZEO when I want to. I do put most everyday spend through a rewards card now, but I want the flexibility to use the other cards to take advantage of discounts, offers, etc. Moving dates will let me do that much easier.
Now I need to be less lazy and make some calls, which isn't likely to happen soon. =P
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@TheKid2 wrote:You'd think logically that a thick, mature file would take a bigger hit then thin, young. Seems awfully penal to me for someone young taking 14 points to pay off all their cards. They like when you pay interest I guess.
Yeah well I find both the "all zero" penalty and the "no open loan" penalty to be oddly penal.
Drives me crazy.
