Too many accounts with balances is not a fluff / filler statement, it’s just not a well tracked reason code.
It's not always a fluff/filler statement, but it can be. In my case, it is. It's profile-specific.
If someone has 10 accounts and all 10 have balances and they're seeing that code listed as their #1 or #2 negative reason statement, no doubt it's not a filler code. For someone like me though that has exactly 1 open installment loan and I'm at AZEO on my revolvers (therefore 2 of 9 total accounts with a balance) and that code appears, it's a fluff/filler statement IMO.
I am comfortable for saying on FICO 8 you want less than 1/3 of revolvers reporting a balance... but we are learning so much new about EX 2 currently that it is hard to say. I am fairly confident that installment loans do count but we have seen say credit union cards get apparently excluded from revolving activity (all zero) do they get dropped from accounts with balances too?
On January 18 I pulled a myFICO 3B report that showed my SSL closed with 2 new revolving accounts. (3 accounts total on my file.)
The only account with a balance was a Mastercard from my credit union: $40, 2% individual utilization, 1% aggregate. (The second card hadn't even arrived in the mail before it reported a $0 statement balance around January 3th.)
EX FICO 2 (727) had the following reasons, in order:
My credit union uses PSCU for credit card processing: https://www.pscu.com/about
They are the largest credit union service organization in the US, so maybe other CUSO's behave differently with respect to AZEO?
Also of note is that on 12/31/18, with my SSL reporting open at 8.47% utilization, my EX FICO 2 was 675. So it jumped +52 points when the SSL closed and 2 new revolving accounts showed up on the 1/18 report. (TU FICO 4 +5, EQ FICO 5 +15)
Cassie: does that PSCU card report as a credit union tradeline on the report?
It just says Account Type: Revolving with Loan Type: Credit Card on the reports from annualcreditreport.com , and my Visa card issued by Citi says Account Type: Revolving with Loan Type: Flexible Spending Credit Card.
Thanks for the 1/3 datapoint though, that seems to at least suggest it is not on number.
Isn't it really 1/2 , since the SSL was closed?
@BBS: so pay off that credit card take the AZ revolving penalty and see if you still have that reason code.
Just because you are 2/9 does not mean it is fluff: what if it is at 1/5 for the line? It just means we need a thicker file to buffer it.
No, I don't still have the reason code, but you're only making my point here. In removing that reason code and replacing it with the "no revolving credit use" reason code, I incur the standard 15-20 point penalty that most see. Reporting a balance in going back to AZEO on revolvers returns those 15-20 points, yet the too many accounts with balances reason code returns on some models. While I don't have the ability to eliminate and reinstate an installment loan, my guess is that closing my mortgage would also eliminate the too many accounts with a balance reason code, only to replace it with a ~30 point penalty for "no installment loan activity" or the like.
I don't need a thicker file to buffer anything. The "too many accounts with balances" reason code clearly isn't impacting my scores much. Yes, by definition it must be adversely impacting my scores at least 1 FICO point to be present, but if it's more than 1-2 points I'd be surprised here. 1-2 points compared to 15-20 for no revolving credit use and (say) ~30 for no installment loan to my by my definition is a fluff/filler statement on my profile. I don't define a fluff/filler statement as something that you can get to disappear. I define it as something that's very insignificant to scoring (a couple of points max) which I believe is the case here on my profile. If your definition of that is different that's fine and we can agree to disagree.
Finally if we are talking optimizing a file then yes, if 1/9 is no penalty and 2/9 is then you need a thicker file period to optimize it.
I'm thinking just fine on this one, senor
Your definition of "optimize" is of the truest sense, where frankly mine isn't. Yes, I need a thicker file to "optimize" it and eliminate that negative reason code, but IMO it's of pissing in the ocean importance and impacting my scores only a couple of points at best. You may consider any reason statement that by definition impacts a FICO score of at least 1 point meaningful. To me any reason statement that's impacting score only a point or a few points is nothing more than a fluff/filler statement for lack of something better, which is the case of this one on my profile.
Again, completely cool to agree to disagree on this one.