AZEO vs 100% w/balances?

[Anonymous]

CGID, do you think it's possible though that both matter? Perhaps the person with a bunch of loans and only 3 revolvers may already be at a high number (and percentage) of accounts with non-zero balances, but could just revolvers be looked at from a percentage perspective independent of loans? I'm not sure there's a concrete answer to this. If so, perhaps someone with 33% of revolvers that goes from AZEO to 3/3 (100%) could experience a slight ding still?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
CGID, do you think it's possible though that both matter? Perhaps the person with a bunch of loans and only 3 revolvers may already be at a high number (and percentage) of accounts with non-zero balances, but could just revolvers be looked at from a percentage perspective independent of loans? I'm not sure there's a concrete answer to this. If so, perhaps someone with 33% of revolvers that goes from AZEO to 3/3 (100%) could experience a slight ding still?

---

@I think it is very possible that both things matter.  That's why I wrote:

"I have always suggested that ratios might be one of the ways FICO looks at this, but there's no reason to think it is the only thing that matters."

My only concern has been the way that people talk about this as if the sole metric would the "percent of cards."  As long as that is the thunderously omnipresent meme, there's no way to explore whether or not it is entirely true.

[Subexistence]

What about the people with SSL just being a part of the group that has many revolvers and 1 loan.

[Anonymous]

---

@Subexistence wrote:

What about the people with SSL just being a part of the group that has many revolvers and 1 loan.

---

I don't understand your question.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous

My only concern has been the way that people talk about this as if the sole metric would the "percent of cards."  As long as that is the thunderously omnipresent meme, there's no way to explore whether or not it is entirely true.

---

I find it odd that people look at it that way, since the exact lingo provided by FICO reason statements is "number" and not "percentage."

[jamie123]

I have tested this many times in the past and will test it again this fall when I set up an AZEO situation.

I can't remember the points lost for each additional reporting card because if I remember correctly it varied a bit and was around 5 points a card. I do however remember that there was a 15 point difference when crossing the 50% of cards reporting a balance threshold. I was testing this when I had 8 CCs and 1 SSL. If I let 4 cards report a small balance I lost 15 points. If I only let 3 cards report a balance I would gain the 15 points back.

I will retest this in the fall. I will have 10 CCs, 1 mortgage and 1 auto loan open this time around.

[Subexistence]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Subexistence wrote:

What about the people with SSL just being a part of the group that has many revolvers and 1 loan.

---

I don't understand your question.

---

The ideal test subjects in my mind would be two classes of people:

     (a) Lots of loans and exactly three cards. 

     (b) Many cards (at least 8 but 12+ would be even better) and exactly 1 open loan.

I meant that some people with only 1 installment loan, the SSL loan, should be in category B described by many cards and exactly 1 open loan. 

[Anonymous]

Jamie, from your post above it suggests that you saw point losses with each additional revolver reporting a balance above AZEO.  Is that really what you saw on your profile?  If so, that's a bit different than what is commonly believed to be the case, where certain thresholds exist.

[Thomas_Thumb]

I saw something like what Jamie reported on my EQ BCE Fico 8 (below graph posted previously in other threads).

[Anonymous]

I don't doubt that with the BCE model, which is known to be more sensitive to cards with balances.  With Classic 8 though, this is something that I haven't heard of yet.