No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:The charge card should not factor in. However, I have investigated this in detail and EQ has it coded differently than TU and EX. I filed a dispute with EQ last year and submitted info from AMEX but no success. EQ is still reporting it abnormally.
The AMEX is having an effect on EQ Fico 04 score relative to the other CRA Fico 04 scores - IMO it is a near certainty.
Thomas_Thumb,
That is very interesting information about you charge card being coded differently on EQ. Have to called the AMEX credit bureau number to see if they can do anything to get it coded correctly?
It would certainly be interesting if you could isolate the charge card effect a little more in a future experiment. I'm not suggesting that the charge card utilization could not have caused the score drop on EQ 04. I'm just pointing out that, on occasion, FICO scores for different bureaus can behave quite differently.
The table below demonstrates the potential differences in behavior of EQ 04 and TU 04 for a particular Score Card. In my current Score Card I would not expect to see such a big difference.
TT edit: I added an estimated % reporting assuming 30 credit cards.
11/22/2015 2/13/2016 # (%) Cards Reporting Balances 2 (6.7%) 4 (13.4%) Aggregate Utilization < 1% < 1% Highest Card Utilization < 1% < 1% EQ 04 791 769 TU 04 824 824
Interesting summary table.
As I recall you have something like 30 cards (?) so for Fico 04 the absolute count of cards reporting appears to be rather significant (as opposed to %). I agree that EQ Fico 04 is more skitish toward # of cards reporting than is either TU Fico 04 or EX Fico 04. Not sure why EQ tweaked the base model that way.
The one card only reporting hypothesis based on Fico 04 score results and subsequent validation of that as an optimum condition were tested quite thoroughly. Those trying to optimize mortgage scores can't go wrong with that tactic even though it may be overkill.
From what I have read outside the forum and seen with poster data on MyFICO, Fico 08 does not score # cards reporting the same as Fico 04. The primary driver for Fico 08 is utilization %. The % of cards reporting balances may come into play over a certain level.
There have been a few posters here that show some Fico 8 score increase when allowing more than one card reporting a balance. I can't discount that data as suspect outright.
I still find the following exerpt from page 37 of Liz Weston's book significant for comparing Fico 04 and Fico 08 (Why mention # accounts showing a balance as a positive if, in fact, the reverse were true?):
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:Thanks.
I just want to re-confirm my EQ Fico 04 punishment [that I think relates to AMEX] as previously experienced back in February.
* At that time my AMEX was reporting 49% B/HB but I also had 6 of 6 cards reporting. This time AMEX will be 100% with "only" 4 of 6 reporting.
Ok - couldn't wait until the 26th and pulled my 3B today. My AMEX charge card did report $1997 and does show 100% B/HB. Total cards reporting a balance was 5 of 6 - BB card slipped in with $33.
As expected and shown previously, no change in Classic Fico 08 or Classic Fico 09 scores. As before all EQ Fico 04 scores (mortgage & enhanced) took a big hit. Pretty sure now that the AMEX charge card is the culprit in the EQ Fico 04 deep dives - none of the credit cards posted more than 2% utilization. Dip not as severe as in February - possibly because there is no inquiry on file or perhaps because 5 of 6 cards reported instead of 6 of 6 cards.
Note 1: There were no charges on AMEX card for the 3/2016 and 12/2015 3B reports.
Note 2: Experian appears to be using older data. Classic Fico 04 stayed at 830 and Bankcard Fico 08 was 900. Those results are not consistent with 5 of 6 cards reporting balances and AMEX at 100% B/HB. [3B report details show EX showing balances on 3 of 6 cards - instead of 5 of 6 and total combined balance is lower]
* AMEX charge card balance is included in the aggregate utilization for July 2016. Without AMEX, AG UT would be less than March 2016.
Pasted below are updated 3B trends.
What sticks out is the major score drop associated with Fico 98 (refer to EX graph & table).
*** These scores dropped sharply - while all other EX Fico scores stayed the same or increased ***
That was unexpected. Is the AMEX charge "100% max out" affecting Fico 98?
EX Date | Classic Fico 8 | Auto Fico 8 | Bankcard Fico 8 | Classic Fico 98 | Auto Fico 98 | Bankcard Fico 98 | Classic Fico 4 |
Mar-15 | 850 | 889 | 898 | 839 | 858 | 870 | 830 |
Jul-15 | 850 | 889 | 898 | 837 | 857 | 868 | 830 |
Nov-15 | 850 | 884 | 900 | 837 | 857 | 865 | 830 |
Feb-16 | 850 | 883 | 895 | 832 | 852 | 853 | 811 |
Mar-16 | 850 | 884 | 898 | 837 | 857 | 862 | 830 |
Jul-16 | 850 | 894 | 900 | 815 | 837 | 836 | 830 |
Finally when it got up to 8/19 cards reporting and utilization at 2.5%, TU dropped 4 points.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
Pasted below are updated 3B trends.
What sticks out is the major score drop associated with Fico 98 (refer to EX graph).
That was unexpected. Is the AMEX charge "100% max out" affecting Fico 98?
EX Date Classic Fico 8 Auto Fico 8 Bankcard Fico 8 Classic Fico 98 Auto Fico 98 Bankcard Fico 98 Classic Fico 4 Mar-15 850 889 898 839 858 870 830 Jul-15 850 889 898 837 857 868 830 Nov-15 850 884 900 837 857 865 830 Feb-16 850 883 895 832 852 853 811 Mar-16 850 884 898 837 857 862 830 Jul-16 850 894 900 815 837 836 830
I seem to recall that FICO 04 was the first scoring model to non factor utilization for charge cards. I don't know if FICO 98 only factored overall utilization or individual card utilization as well.
There is an very easy way to determine if EQ 04 is scoring your AMEX charge card balance. Let your charge card be the only card to report a balance. It your FICO 04 drops, then the charge card utilization is not being scored.
This would eliminate all doubt and opinions.
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:Pasted below are updated 3B trends.
What sticks out is the major score drop associated with Fico 98 (refer to EX graph).
That was unexpected. Is the AMEX charge "100% max out" affecting Fico 98?
EX Date Classic Fico 8 Auto Fico 8 Bankcard Fico 8 Classic Fico 98 Auto Fico 98 Bankcard Fico 98 Classic Fico 4 Mar-15 850 889 898 839 858 870 830 Jul-15 850 889 898 837 857 868 830 Nov-15 850 884 900 837 857 865 830 Feb-16 850 883 895 832 < 852 < 853 < 811 Mar-16 850 884 898 837 857 862 830 Jul-16 850 894 900 815 < 837 < 836 < 830 I seem to recall that FICO 04 was the first scoring model to non factor utilization for charge cards. I don't know if FICO 98 only factored overall utilization or individual card utilization as well.
There is an very easy way to determine if EQ 04 is scoring your AMEX charge card balance. Let your charge card be the only card to report a balance. It your FICO 04 drops, then the charge card utilization is not being scored.
This would eliminate all doubt and opinions.
The EX table data shows all EX scores except Fico 98 versions stayning the same or going up. Also, Fico 98 scores were significantly higher in February than in July.
1) In February 6 of 6 cards reported balances with aggregate UT was 3.7%. AMEX B/HB at 49%
2) In July 5 of 6 cards reported balances with aggregate UT at 3.1%. AMEX B/HB was 100%.
- The above data clearly indicates that Fico 98 does look at charge card B/HB as a scoring factor on an individual basis. [Fico 98 scores higher in February by 15 points although more cards reported balances and aggregate UT % was higher. Only explanation I have for the lower July score is AMEX max out]
- Also worthy of note is that none of the EX Fico 08 scores nor Classic EX Fico 04 were negatively impacted by the AMEX card.
I am going to bench my AMEX card for a few months and focus on other things. I anticipate the older version Fico scores will return to normal ranges with AMEX out of the picture.
P.S. I am an AU on a credit card that is used by DW exclusively for household expenses. She always lets all charges report and then PIFs the card. I do not interfere. Thus, no possibility of ever having just AMEX report a balance. I'm comfortable with the above data and concluding Fico 98 looks at charge card B/HB as a factor.
I do hope to test only having the AU credit card show a balance at some later date to see if I can get past the Fico04 809/823/830 ceilings
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:Pasted below are updated 3B trends.
What sticks out is the major score drop associated with Fico 98 (refer to EX graph).
That was unexpected. Is the AMEX charge "100% max out" affecting Fico 98?
EX Date Classic Fico 8 Auto Fico 8 Bankcard Fico 8 Classic Fico 98 Auto Fico 98 Bankcard Fico 98 Classic Fico 4 Mar-15 850 889 898 839 858 870 830 Jul-15 850 889 898 837 857 868 830 Nov-15 850 884 900 837 857 865 830 Feb-16 850 883 895 832 < 852 < 853 < 811 Mar-16 850 884 898 837 857 862 830 Jul-16 850 894 900 815 < 837 < 836 < 830 I seem to recall that FICO 04 was the first scoring model to non factor utilization for charge cards. I don't know if FICO 98 only factored overall utilization or individual card utilization as well.
There is an very easy way to determine if EQ 04 is scoring your AMEX charge card balance. Let your charge card be the only card to report a balance. It your FICO 04 drops, then the charge card utilization is not being scored.
This would eliminate all doubt and opinions.
The EX table data shows all EX scores except Fico 98 versions stayning the same or going up. Also, Fico 98 scores were significantly higher in February than in July.
1) In February 6 of 6 cards reported balances with aggregate UT was 3.7%. AMEX B/HB at 49%
2) In July 5 of 6 cards reported balances with aggregate UT at 3.1%. AMEX B/HB was 100%.
- The above data clearly indicates that Fico 98 does look at charge card B/HB as a scoring factor on an individual basis. [Fico 98 scores higher in February by 15 points although more cards reported balances and aggregate UT % was higher. Only explanation I have for the lower July score is AMEX max out]
- Also worthy of note is that none of the EX Fico 08 scores nor Classic EX Fico 04 were negatively impacted by the AMEX card.
I am going to bench my AMEX card for a few months and focus on other things. I anticipate the older version Fico scores will return to normal ranges with AMEX out of the picture.
P.S. I am an AU on a credit card that is used by DW exclusively for household expenses. She always lets all charges report and then PIFs the card. I do not interfere. Thus, no possibility of ever having just AMEX report a balance. I'm comfortable with the above data and concluding Fico 98 looks at charge card B/HB as a factor.
I do hope to test only having the AU credit card show a balance at some later date to see if I can get past the Fico04 809/823/830 ceilings
I agree. Your conclusion that EX FICO 98 looks at charge card B/HB as a scoring factor on an individual basis seems reasonable. We do know that FICO 98 scored charge card utilization. FICO 98 wouldn't be worthy of any further testing.