All TU4 scores dropped?

[Thomas_Thumb]

I find the large increase in EX scores most interesting. Given the greater change in Bankcard score relative to Classic or Auto, I would surmize the influencing scoring attribute would relate to revolving credit (reduction in # cards reporting, reduction in revolving utilization or a reduction in B/HB on a charge card).

The reason code: "you have too many credit accounts with balances" no longer being displayed correlates to the score jumps in EX

Why didn't EQ and TU scores jump?

It appears you have no scorable inquiries on EX. (EQ and TU list "you opened a new account relatively recently". The: "amount owed on your revolving or open ended accounts is too high" is present on EQ and TU but not EX. Perhaps the Fico 04 model (EQ score 5 and TU score 4) looks at "amount owed" differently than does Fico 98 (EX score 2).

The "you've made heavy use of your available revolving credit" coupled with "amount owed" stands out as a difference for TU. Still, I don't have a good explaination for the TU score drop while EQ remains essentially the same.

[Trudy]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

I find the large increase in EX scores most interesting. Given the greater change in Bankcard score relative to Classic or Auto, I would surmize the influencing scoring attribute would relate to revolving credit (reduction in # cards reporting, reduction in revolving utilization or a reduction in B/HB on a charge card).  EX has always been most sensitive (classic 8 and 2's more so) with # of accts reporting.  So 4 (2 rev & 2 inst) has proven to be the sweet spot with EX.  Actually 1 revolver reporting.  My past experience and notes seems to indicate that. TU has been most sensitive to UTL but doesn't seem to prove it this time.

The reason code: "you have too many credit accounts with balances" no longer being displayed correlates to the score jumps in EX. Which supports my sweet spot for them.

Why didn't EQ and TU scores jump?  EQ has always been solid.  I definitely have more of a buffer with them than I do with TU as I was at 850 on classic 8 for both until I opened a new account 9/2019 (EX INQ only).  Lost 1 pt with EQ and a total of 19 with TU (9 for new acct reporting and 10 more when 46% reported the following month on the new account)  The new account showed up without a balance although the balance was there when I opened the new acct and why I opened the new account.  Showed up the following reporting cycle.

It appears you have no scorable inquiries on EX. EX is the only bureau with a scorable INQ as seen in printscreen from post #8.  (EQ and TU list "you opened a new account relatively recently". The: "amount owed on your revolving or open ended accounts is too high" is present on EQ and TU but not EX. Perhaps the Fico 04 model (EQ score 5 and TU score 4) looks at "amount owed" differently than does Fico 98 (EX score 2) or EX could be less sensitive due to lack of a scoreable HP.

The "you've made heavy use of your available revolving credit" coupled with "amount owed" stands out as a difference for TU. Still, I don't have a good explaination for the TU score drop while EQ remains essentially the same.

---

Thanks for your input.  Seems like Seinfield's Bizarro world, but there must be a reason....right?

[Anonymous]

I think it's pretty clear we both switched scorecards. I kept the balances exactly the same, to the penny, on both open cards for both of these reports.

All of a sudden, 'High Revolving Balances' and 'Amounts owed' started showing up since my Dec 10 3B. I have never had a revolving account report above 9% utilization and aggregate has always been less than or equal to 9%. 'High revolving balances' now moves down at 5% aggregate util on EX2.

	Via myFICO 3B: AoYA 11mo to AoYA 1yr0mo, AoOA 1yr11mo to AoOA 2yr0mo	11/10	Δ	12/10
FICO 5	EQ	724		724
[Change]	Short credit history, High revolving balances, Short revolving history, Seeking credit
	Short credit history, Too many accounts with balances, Seeking credit, Short revolving credit history
FICO 4	TU	717	+11	728
[Change]	Short credit history, No recent loan activity, Recently opened new credit account, High revolving balances
	Short credit history, Seeking credit, Short revolving credit history, Recently opened new credit account
FICO 2	EX	733	-22	711
[Change]	Short credit history, Short revolving credit history, Seeking credit, High revolving balances
	Short credit history, Too many accounts with balances, Seeking credit, Recently opened too many new credit accounts

[Trudy]

Thanks CassieCard.

I think with this point I'm going to resign myself to accept the scorecard change as the reason because my brain has to move on...for now.

The difference in age for our profiles kept that question mark in my head "could this be or is it something else?".  But actually reading the data I just provide in response to ThomasThumb seems to support the change.  I can explain EX, EQ is EQ for me and TU didn't behave the way I expected it to based on past movement I've documented.  Understanding there is no exact same situation when time is a factor and UTL may fluctuate even within the known %'s,  I've consistently received increases with TU UTL decreases more so than the other 2 bureaus.

TU not responding to UTL like it has consistently compared to the others seems like a scorecard change. 

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Trudy wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

I find the large increase in EX scores most interesting. Given the greater change in Bankcard score relative to Classic or Auto, I would surmize the influencing scoring attribute would relate to revolving credit (reduction in # cards reporting, reduction in revolving utilization or a reduction in B/HB on a charge card).  EX has always been most sensitive (classic 8 and 2's more so) with # of accts reporting.

The reason code: "you have too many credit accounts with balances" no longer being displayed correlates to the score jumps in EX. Which supports my sweet spot for them. [recent inquiry in CRA file influences score drop associated with # cards  - you appear to have suffered a significant penalty on EX in the prior month due to more cards reporting. Not much of a penalty on TU or EQ - so not much potential point gain]

Why didn't EQ and TU scores jump?  EQ has always been solid.  I definitely have more of a buffer with them than I do with TU as I was at 850 on classic 8 for both until I opened a new account 9/2019 (EX INQ only).  Lost 1 pt with EQ and a total of 19 with TU (9 for new acct reporting and 10 more when 46% reported the following month on the new account)  The new account showed up without a balance although the balance was there when I opened the new acct and why I opened the new account.  Showed up the following reporting cycle.

It appears you have no scorable inquiries on EX. EX is the only bureau with a scorable INQ as seen in printscreen from post #8.  [This really helps - thanks for correcting my misunderstanding]

My past experience and notes seems to indicate that. TU has been most sensitive to UTL but doesn't seem to prove it this time. [I have seen TU Fico 8 more sensitive to utilization as well. It is the only one that has dropped below 850 for me with increased utilization]

---

Thanks for your input.  Seems like Seinfield's Bizarro world, but there must be a reason....right? [yes - but my biggest take away with your data is more confirmation of increased sensitivity of score to # cards reporting when there is a recent HP on the CRA]

---

Ok - The EX score boost make much more sense now that I know it was the only credit bureau with a recent HP. (none on EQ or TU). Having a countable HP on file increases sensitivity of score to # cards with balances relative to the same file without a recent HP.  I saw a significant increase in responsiveness to # cards reporting  on TU  (going from 0 => 1 HP) and a subsequent reduction going from 1 => 0 HP.

Side note: I have not opened a new account in 8.5 years. The HP on TU and the two (1 only at two different times) I had on EQ were all from CLI requests. So either the HP causes a scorecard change (which is doubtful) or it conditions sensitivity of score to targeted attributes.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Clean>thin/thick>nonaged/aged>new accounts/no new accounts.

Both of our reports support a hypothesis that 'non-aged/aged' is not binary. I respectfully disagree. I would think a profile would be 'aged' enough at say 10 years(I agree), but that's not how this prediction works. There can be credit-risky populations at any profile age, and I would also think that to be a pretty low percentage as well.

But really it's all about what the collected data said about people that had a clean, thick profile at 24yrs 0mos. It would have to be way more than binary for that and you must include the new account/new credit and HP. The older models must now see something slightly more risky with the existing profile data, and increased the penalty for certain scoring factors. Yes, of course they do and have. They see a new account with recent HPs. That does exactly that.

It's just something to keep in mind as we observe other profile changes.

---

We know a new account scorecard is higher risk and therefore more reactive. As TT said, a recent HP increases the sensitivity. But IDK about the AoOA noy being binary. They would need more scorecards.

I've believed the threshold is around 10-12 years. But, after failing to see 5-4-2 fail to react to my youngest revolver turning 12 months, I've had to question whether the thresholds are the same for all versions. Who knows, the threshold could be at 2 years, exactly where the algorithm is designed to predict default. I hope we learn it somehow.

How would you propose age not be binary with 12 cards? 8 clean?

Sorry, been away probably be in and out.

***update*** EX2 and EQ5 and TU4 switch from young to mature at 2 years. CassieCard did switch scorecards. Trudys is still unknown.