cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts

Birdman7
Super Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts

I just had Chase report a $2 balance.
-Our Community’s updated scoring wisdom: Link to Scoring Primer.
-For Negative Reason Codes see: CassieCard’s Score Factors thread.
-ccquest’s workbook to calculate metrics for you: Link to Workbook.

Correct Ag.Util. under 5% all times. (Oldest/avg varies. Estimates above.)
Real world mortgage maxes are: EQ5-818, TU4-839, EX2-844.

RIP:

(Everything said is JMHO and is not endorsed by FICO or MF. I have no affiliation with either, just a grateful member.)
Message 21 of 73
CassieCard
Senior Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts

I just checked Experian and my Amex BCE finally updated there (closed on the 8th, took 6 days this time). This is the only change as my 3 other cards already closed and updated for January.

 

-$272 from my previous report, which brings aggregate util from 5% to 4% (4.91 to 4.06, actual),

$1,571 to $1,299.

 

These are the score changes from Experian:

 

 

 8 

AU8

BC8

 2 

AU2

BC2

 3 

EX

+4

+4

+4

+5

+5

+5

0

 

I have no reason statements on any score that relate to 'amount owed' or 'proportion of balances', so I can't tell exactly what triggered the positive change. A 5% or a $1500 threshold?

 

I think these score changes are due to the 5% to 4% aggregate change, because I have seen it before on EX/EQ/TU with aggregate balance under $1000. See my post about that here: EX has a 4% aggregate utilization threshold (0,4]

 

( I called it a 4% threshold there before we found out from FICO's Principal Scientist that util % is not always rounded up (ceiling). I use the percentage after standard rounding now, or 5% in that case. )

 

Aggregate 5% to 4%, $1,571 to $1,299 (of $32,000 TCL).Aggregate 5% to 4%, $1,571 to $1,299 (of $32,000 TCL).

Message 22 of 73
CassieCard
Senior Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts

Oh this is perfect! Just now got the myFICO balance/score change alert for EQ 8.

 

This is the same 5% to 4% change as with EX in my previous post: $1,571 to $1,299 ($32,000 TCL).

 

eq8-up_4_with_5_to_4_aggregate.png

Message 23 of 73
SouthJamaica
Super Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts


@CassieCard wrote:

I just checked Experian and my Amex BCE finally updated there (closed on the 8th, took 6 days this time). This is the only change as my 3 other cards already closed and updated for January.

 

-$272 from my previous report, which brings aggregate util from 5% to 4% (4.91 to 4.06, actual),

$1,571 to $1,299.

 

These are the score changes from Experian:

 

 

 8 

AU8

BC8

 2 

AU2

BC2

 3 

EX

+4

+4

+4

+5

+5

+5

0

 

I have no reason statements on any score that relate to 'amount owed' or 'proportion of balances', so I can't tell exactly what triggered the positive change. A 5% or a $1500 threshold?

 

I think these score changes are due to the 5% to 4% aggregate change, because I have seen it before on EX/EQ/TU with aggregate balance under $1000. See my post about that here: EX has a 4% aggregate utilization threshold (0,4]

 

( I called it a 4% threshold there before we found out from FICO's Principal Scientist that util % is not always rounded up (ceiling). I use the percentage after standard rounding now, or 5% in that case. )

 

Aggregate 5% to 4%, $1,571 to $1,299 (of $32,000 TCL).Aggregate 5% to 4%, $1,571 to $1,299 (of $32,000 TCL).


So your experience tends to support what I have been saying, or at least is consistent with my experience, which is that in aggregate revolving utilization there have been no "thresholds"; every full integer gain or loss seems to affect my score.

Message 24 of 73
CassieCard
Senior Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts


@SouthJamaica wrote:


So your experience tends to support what I have been saying, or at least is consistent with my experience, which is that in aggregate revolving utilization there have been no "thresholds"; every full integer gain or loss seems to affect my score.


Tom Quinn from FICO is always hesitant to talk about "thresholds" in every interview, as if it's more complicated than that.

 

On my current scorecard, and the one I was on at under 3yrs AoOA, it looks exactly like a threshold at 5%, because I have no further score changes in the (0,4] or (5,9] intervals.

 

For example, if I go to 3% (3.125 actual) at $1000 aggregate balance, there is no score change.

 

But if I drop to $866, also 3% (2.71 actual), I will pick up some points on the older 5-4-2 models. And probably the 8's too on this new scorecard, but this is my first report at 3yrs 1mo.

Message 25 of 73
SouthJamaica
Super Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts


@CassieCard wrote:

@SouthJamaica wrote:


So your experience tends to support what I have been saying, or at least is consistent with my experience, which is that in aggregate revolving utilization there have been no "thresholds"; every full integer gain or loss seems to affect my score.


Tom Quinn from FICO is always hesitant to talk about "thresholds" in every interview, as if it's more complicated than that.

 

On my current scorecard, and the one I was on at under 3yrs AoOA, it looks exactly like a threshold at 5%, because I have no further score changes in the (0,4] or (5,9] intervals.

 

For example, if I go to 3% (3.125 actual) at $1000 aggregate balance, there is no score change.

 

But if I drop to $866, also 3% (2.71 actual), I will pick up some points on the older 5-4-2 models. And probably the 8's too on this new scorecard, but this is my first report at 3yrs 1mo.


Well he's reluctant to talk about the thresholds because he has secret protected information that he doesn't want to give away. Me I love to talk about them, but only when I'm confident they exist Smiley Happy

 

In my first couple of years in this forum I used to hear about all these thresholds and then pass them along to others as though they were gospel.  Ever since I got the daily updates from experian.com, though, I've come to realize that some of the thresholds I used to so glibly talk about are imaginary.

 

Now I can count on one hand the thresholds I'm sure about, and in aggregate revolving utilization the only one I know of is the all zero one.  You definitely will take a disproportionate beating if all revolvers report zero.

Message 26 of 73
Birdman7
Super Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts

@SouthJamaica I’m pretty sure you’re hitting balance thresholds too and that’s why you’re seeing intervening score changes. Jmho.

-Our Community’s updated scoring wisdom: Link to Scoring Primer.
-For Negative Reason Codes see: CassieCard’s Score Factors thread.
-ccquest’s workbook to calculate metrics for you: Link to Workbook.

Correct Ag.Util. under 5% all times. (Oldest/avg varies. Estimates above.)
Real world mortgage maxes are: EQ5-818, TU4-839, EX2-844.

RIP:

(Everything said is JMHO and is not endorsed by FICO or MF. I have no affiliation with either, just a grateful member.)
Message 27 of 73
CassieCard
Senior Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts


@Birdman7 wrote:
I’m pretty sure you’re hitting balance thresholds too and that’s why you’re seeing intervening score changes. Jmho.

@Birdman7: I just got another alert....it's for TU8 this time. Same +4 as with EX/EQ 8. This is dropping back to $1,299 from $1,571.

 

The first 3 statements are the same, but there was a change in number 4:

  • At 5% ($1,571):  Proportion of balances to credit limits on bank/national revolving or other revolving accounts is too high.
  • At 4% ($1,299):  Too many accounts with balances.

You can see them all in the alert snapshots below.

 

At 5% aggegrate on TU 8.At 5% aggegrate on TU 8.


At 4% aggregate.At 4% aggregate.

Message 28 of 73
CassieCard
Senior Contributor

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts


@SouthJamaica wrote:

In my first couple of years in this forum I used to hear about all these thresholds and then pass them along to others as though they were gospel.  Ever since I got the daily updates from experian.com, though, I've come to realize that some of the thresholds I used to so glibly talk about are imaginary.


@SouthJamaica: Have you ever observed score changes at each integer util% under 10% (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), with less than $2,000 in aggregate balance reporting? Is there a rough estimate of min/max reported aggregate balance that you can give for most of your observations?

 

I'm wondering if I only see score changes at 5% (and the $1000 line on older scores) because of scorecard/credit-history-length alone. Maybe it's our differences in total number of accounts and/or total balance reporting.

 

The maximum reported aggregate balance I have had is around $1,861. I always pay down anything that's higher than 9% before statement close, then pay to zero right after.

Message 29 of 73
Remedios
Moderator

Re: Accounts with Balances: 2 ➟ 4 (of 4) = EX2 -17pts

I used to see change when going from 4% to 5% back in the AZEO days. 

It was only 2 points, but my file is much thicker than Cassie's. 

 

I do not see that change any longer. 

Message 30 of 73
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.