@randomguy1 wrote:
@JR_TX wrote:
@Caught750 wrote:
First off; each CRA uses their own algorithms and are sensitive to different things. This shouldn’t be the case with going from 0% Util to 2% Util, you’ll see some increase across the board, though it may be slightly +/- 20 points. Secondly; I’ve noticed that MyFICO can be delayed
in updating scores with updates. Not sure what it is but it happens sometimes. Don’t worry it’ll increase, or perhaps I should say it already has and myFICO will catch up.
CRAs (EX, EQ, TU) are merely Data Warehouses where all of our credit data are being reported to and kept. The FICO score that we get is from another company called Fair Isaac and Co. (FICO) which runs their proprietary scoring model every time a score is sought either by us or by businesses. The difference that we see in our scores in each CRA is not the variation of Algorithms but the variations of data reported to and kept by each CRA. That's why it's imperative that we as consumers always check our reports for inaccuracies.
Does each CRA just house the data or do they also tag them with codes that can perhaps influence the scoring models from FICO?
The major CRAs aka Experian, Equifax and TransUnion just purely house and store data as reported by businesses we have dealings or dealt with. They play no part on what's stored and have zero influence on what's scored by FICO. Think of them as just hard drives or servers of data. Scores are generated by Fair, Isaac and Company (FICO) based on those specific data. They have, however come up with their own version of scoring models known as Vantage designed purely to generate profit and compete with FICO.
@Hut1 wrote:I'm putting this under CC's since that's where the increase came from.
CLI $15,000 --> $15,500
UTI $0 --> $445 (2% UTI)
My mind is completely blown how such small changes can cause a 20 point increase on a FICO. All from my Navy Go.. my Cap1 QS & AmEx BCE hasn't even been reported yet.
Keep in mind that although there's an "algorithm" for FICO, each bureau may respond differently. Many have noted that TU is more sensitive to # of accts reporting a balance and UTL changes outside of the known thresholds which could cause a hit to your score whereas a different CB isn't as sensitive to those actions and doesn't change. I don't know how to explain it other than there is no absolute algorithm across the board. For all 3 bureaus I have basically the same information, only EQ has an old closed acct still reporting that increases my AAoA by 2 months I believe and EX has an old 30D late set to expire in 12/2019. So, excluding EX which changes everything because of the late, if I look at TU and EQ with the only difference being 2 months in AAoA (mine is above what is thought to be a threshold where it doesn't matter - 11Y 4M), I have different results between the 2 bureaus due to their own weights on certain factors or response to certain actions.
And in regard to Queen87's loss of points, if all CC reported zero there is a penalty regardless of what seems to be the best financial move. Ergo the reason AZEO is used to maximize scores, not AZ.
Said all that to say you may not be able to assume that the same action on different bureaus will result in the same score impact. For me EQ is bullet proof and rarely moves with # of accts reporting whereas TU will reduce my score when I report 4 or more accounts with a balance. Some say their profiles dictates the opposite of mine.
It is difficult to determine absolutes based on some of the data points we've learned here because everyone's profile is different and even the bureaus may treat the same information differently.
Lastly, MyFICO alerts that are accompanied by a score change may not be and may seldom be the reason for the score change. It's just an alertable event that will pull your score at that time. The score change may have occurred prior to that alert but when it did it was not an alertable event based on what MyFICO states are alertable events. It is probably one of the most common misconception threads that exist here.
You all may know all of this but just thought I'd share since it hasn't been mentioned thus far.
@Trudy wrote:
@Hut1 wrote:I'm putting this under CC's since that's where the increase came from.
CLI $15,000 --> $15,500
UTI $0 --> $445 (2% UTI)
My mind is completely blown how such small changes can cause a 20 point increase on a FICO. All from my Navy Go.. my Cap1 QS & AmEx BCE hasn't even been reported yet.
Keep in mind that although there's an "algorithm" for FICO, each bureau may respond differently. Many have noted that TU is more sensitive to # of accts reporting a balance and UTL changes outside of the known thresholds which could cause a hit to your score whereas a different CB isn't as sensitive to those actions and doesn't change. I don't know how to explain it other than there is no absolute algorithm across the board. For all 3 bureaus I have basically the same information, only EQ has an old closed acct still reporting that increases my AAoA by 2 months I believe and EX has an old 30D late set to expire in 12/2019. So, excluding EX which changes everything because of the late, if I look at TU and EQ with the only difference being 2 months in AAoA (mine is above what is thought to be a threshold where it doesn't matter - 11Y 4M), I have different results between the 2 bureaus due to their own weights on certain factors or response to certain actions.
And in regard to Queen87's loss of points, if all CC reported zero there is a penalty regardless of what seems to be the best financial move. Ergo the reason AZEO is used to maximize scores, not AZ.
Said all that to say you may not be able to assume that the same action on different bureaus will result in the same score impact. For me EQ is bullet proof and rarely moves with # of accts reporting whereas TU will reduce my score when I report 4 or more accounts with a balance. Some say their profiles dictates the opposite of mine.
It is difficult to determine absolutes based on some of the data points we've learned here because everyone's profile is different and even the bureaus may treat the same information differently.
Lastly, MyFICO alerts that are accompanied by a score change may not be and may seldom be the reason for the score change. It's just an alertable event that will pull your score at that time. The score change may have occurred prior to that alert but when it did it was not an alertable event based on what MyFICO states are alertable events. It is probably one of the most common misconception threads that exist here.
You all may know all of this but just thought I'd share since it hasn't been mentioned thus far.
I agree 💯%... same thing happens to my scores as well. 😎
“Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough not to quit.”
@Anonymous wrote:
@Hut1 wrote:I'm putting this under CC's since that's where the increase came from.
CLI $15,000 --> $15,500
UTI $0 --> $445 (2% UTI)
My mind is completely blown how such small changes can cause a 20 point increase on a FICO. All from my Navy Go.. my Cap1 QS & AmEx BCE hasn't even been reported yet.
CONGRATS!!! but I think you took my 20 pts HAHAHAHAH LOL Paid off all my credit cards and my scores dropped 20 pts SMH!
If all of your cards are reporting a $0 balance, that's why you lost 20 points. You need to have at least 1 card reporting a small balance, or you'll get dinged for not showing use of any credit.
