@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/update-Crossing-the-boundary-new-data-poi...
Obviously, mortgage loans are scored very differently. No further explanation needed.
How do you get that?
One installment loan crossed 80% and bada_bing got a bump: how from your read of that thread is it conclusive proof that it is scored very differently when my own mortgage loan dropped my prior installment utilization down effectively the same number of points I gained previously and we've seen auto loans and share secure loans are effectively the same? We already know there's a threshold at either 80 or 70% give or take. It's not unreasonable that there's going to be differing datapoints in any experimentation when trying to find something out especially in the somewhat unknown evironments that are people's credit reports... if you don't undestand that, well I can't come up with an explanation that isn't a violation of this forum's TOS.
Do some analysis and research dude, jesus: actually read the threads. I find the fact you have come here to simply troll the data that's been aggregated here anathema, if you hate this forum this much go back.
I had only 1 break point, at 10%, for a SSL.
There is not 1 single data point for anyone having a higher break point for a single SSL. Even if someone does come up with that data point it will only be relevant to that particular peron's profile. There is no reason to assume that anyone will ever come up with that data point.
If SSLs only have 1 break point, then they are obviously no being scored the same as other installment loans.
Incorrect. I had my installment for 1.5 years before pay down. 80% showed a pop. 70% showed a pop. More important, my scores stopped swinging wildly when I added another cc or two.
Thanks for the info.
I have seen some solid data from CAPTOOL and Masscredit showing a step change bump up in score when dropping below a nominal 70% threshold. CAPTOOL's 70% data is based on installment loans in aggregate. Masscredit's data is for an Auto loan and that result appears to conflict with SJ's result.
It has been said in the past that age of an open loan(s) is a factor in scoring. Perhaps solid payment history on loans with some age (over 12 months) are looked at differently than new loans relative to B/L ratio threshold.
As I've pointed out before, CAPTOOL's data was an aggregate of SSLs and Lending Club type loans. We have know idea how those typoe of loans are scored.
Masscredit's data made my head spin, but it was essentially for an auto loan. And as you said TT, it conficts with SJ's data.
We still, after almost a year, have no data points for an SSL having an upper scoring threshold.
The lack of clean data points after that much time is a data point in and of itself.
As CL, I ask that we speak not so abruptly, as to keep it FSR. I understand you feel strongly about your convictions, but please, it is not what we say, but how we say it
( look at my initial statement that you quoted, several times). Thanks for understanding.
You made the non FSR statement that I was incorrect. How is it non FSR for me to ask that you supply some sort of proof to back up your non FSR statement.
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/update-Crossing-the-boundary-new-data-poi...
Obviously, mortgage loans are scored very differently. No further explanation needed.
How do you get that?
One installment loan crossed 80% and bada_bing got a bump: how from your read of that thread is it conclusive proof that it is scored very differently when my own mortgage loan dropped my prior installment utilization down effectively the same number of points I gained previously and we've seen auto loans and share secure loans are effectively the same? We already know there's a threshold at either 80 or 70% give or take. It's not unreasonable that there's going to be differing datapoints in any experimentation when trying to find something out especially in the somewhat unknown evironments that are people's credit reports... if you don't undestand that, well I can't come up with an explanation that isn't a violation of this forum's TOS.
Do some analysis and research dude, jesus: actually read the threads. I find the fact you have come here to simply troll the data that's been aggregated here anathema, if you hate this forum this much go back.
I had only 1 break point, at 10%, for a SSL.
There is not 1 single data point for anyone having a higher break point for a single SSL. Even if someone does come up with that data point it will only be relevant to that particular peron's profile. There is no reason to assume that anyone will ever come up with that data point.
If SSLs only have 1 break point, then they are obviously no being scored the same as other installment loans.
Incorrect. I had my installment for 1.5 years before pay down. 80% showed a pop. 70% showed a pop. More important, my scores stopped swinging wildly when I added another cc or two.
Could you provide some data points, preferably in a table showing the 80% and 70% pops. It would be desirable if the data points showed the same utilization and # of cards reporting balances. It should also show the same utilization and # of cards reporting balances before and after the score changes. This would isolate the score changes.
How do you explain the fact that other posters, including SouthJamaica, have tested the 80% and 70% thresholds and found nothing.
It seems silly to me, that after a year people are making claims about something that is so easy to prove.
All it takes to prove what you are saying is for a few prople to pay down their loans to 12% and check their scores. Then, they can pay down their loans to <10% and check their scores. The score changes or lack of score changes at 12% would show whether or not their is an upper scoring threshold. There is no reason anyone should be trying to determine the upper threshold until its existence can be proven.
Also, their is no reason we need to continue to pretend that there is a 9% threshold. It is 10% and has always been 10%.
Since you are a Community Leader, maybe you could make use your position and popularity to obtain proof of the data points your claim. To me,that would seem to be much more desireable than pointing out a result that seems contrary to other published data points.
Some data points please.
Mine was a longer term loan. Ergo, I did not keep data points, just watched the score climb from 730 to 760+ (you can see it is higher now). They did not start collecting data points on 10% left UNTIL Way AFTER I got the loan. Therefore, time seems to have been a factor. I did not call you out, and will not debate the subject with you. It's over, please let go. End all, be all.
Thanks so much CreditGuy for all of this great info! I will sure come in handy in the future! I'm copying all of this to my notes. 
@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/update-Crossing-the-boundary-new-data-poi...
Obviously, mortgage loans are scored very differently. No further explanation needed.
How do you get that?
One installment loan crossed 80% and bada_bing got a bump: how from your read of that thread is it conclusive proof that it is scored very differently when my own mortgage loan dropped my prior installment utilization down effectively the same number of points I gained previously and we've seen auto loans and share secure loans are effectively the same? We already know there's a threshold at either 80 or 70% give or take. It's not unreasonable that there's going to be differing datapoints in any experimentation when trying to find something out especially in the somewhat unknown evironments that are people's credit reports... if you don't undestand that, well I can't come up with an explanation that isn't a violation of this forum's TOS.
Do some analysis and research dude, jesus: actually read the threads. I find the fact you have come here to simply troll the data that's been aggregated here anathema, if you hate this forum this much go back.
I had only 1 break point, at 10%, for a SSL.
There is not 1 single data point for anyone having a higher break point for a single SSL. Even if someone does come up with that data point it will only be relevant to that particular peron's profile. There is no reason to assume that anyone will ever come up with that data point.
If SSLs only have 1 break point, then they are obviously no being scored the same as other installment loans.
Incorrect. I had my installment for 1.5 years before pay down. 80% showed a pop. 70% showed a pop. More important, my scores stopped swinging wildly when I added another cc or two.
Could you provide some data points, preferably in a table showing the 80% and 70% pops. It would be desirable if the data points showed the same utilization and # of cards reporting balances. It should also show the same utilization and # of cards reporting balances before and after the score changes. This would isolate the score changes.
How do you explain the fact that other posters, including SouthJamaica, have tested the 80% and 70% thresholds and found nothing.
It seems silly to me, that after a year people are making claims about something that is so easy to prove.
All it takes to prove what you are saying is for a few prople to pay down their loans to 12% and check their scores. Then, they can pay down their loans to <10% and check their scores. The score changes or lack of score changes at 12% would show whether or not their is an upper scoring threshold. There is no reason anyone should be trying to determine the upper threshold until its existence can be proven.
Also, their is no reason we need to continue to pretend that there is a 9% threshold. It is 10% and has always been 10%.
Since you are a Community Leader, maybe you could make use your position and popularity to obtain proof of the data points your claim. To me,that would seem to be much more desireable than pointing out a result that seems contrary to other published data points.
Some data points please.
Mine was a longer term loan. Ergo, I did not keep data points, just watched the score climb from 730 to 760+ (you can see it is higher now). They did not start collecting data points on 10% left UNTIL Way AFTER I got the loan. Therefore, time seems to have been a factor. I did not call you out, and will not debate the subject with you. It's over, please let go. End all, be all.
It is over. Based on your last statement, you had absolutetly not reason to say that I was incorrect. So, you chose, for not reason whatsoever, to cast doubt on my data points. If I live to 100 years, I will never understand that type of behavior. I asked you to explain your behavior. Your chose not to. So, I will have to just live with not understanding the motivations that cause that type of behavior.
Sigh.
How am I looking so far? Did I wait too long to pay down to $44 or it doesn't matter? Any advice please, Thanks!
