I like others, waiting for WF to update, very late this time around. 2 accounts (CC & LOC). This will reduce 1 acct reporting (5 to 4 including auto and MTG), 1 card from 5.980% to 3.880%. If there is a score change not sure I'll be able to tell if it's the IND or AGG below 4% unless the LOC reports $0 1st.
Under 6% didn't bring me anything but I'm waiting to see if under 4% will. I'm starting to think this is a dollar thing instead of %. More so with MTG scores. Yesterday, 1 account updated reducing UTL only by $160, no change in # of accts reporting. Only change is the 1 card UTL 19.444% to 17.963%. AGG UTL went from 4.640% to 4.471%.
All 8 scores +2
MTG +16
Auto +14
CC +17
Hmmm....
@Anonymous , not sure the previous thought regarding closed accts will survive noted in a previous thread since I still have the same # of accts reporting and the MTG scores shot up. No reason codes since MTG is in the 800's and industry 8's are above 850 before and after.
I'm just curious 
@Anonymous wrote:I think you may be right about the dollar balances with your scorecard.
With EX 8 models, I only got the expected small gain with everything ≤ 4.0%, and my aggregate balance amount increased from $586 to $850. So it's not related to dollar balances on this new credit scorecard.
Even the single card with 5% (aggr 3%) prevented it.
But this may not even exist in this form on profiles with much more history.
While searching whether this % threshold applies to my profile I think I've "nearly" absolutely found that dollars impact my profile. Since WF is not updating at all, that same $160 decrease on the 1 other card reporting a balance being the only change raised my EQ8 score 1 pt 849 -850 (probably more as there is likely a buffer). Received alert today from MyFICO. Will pull my 3B once everything updates and see what it does to my EQ5 scores as those old models appears to be the big winner from this change. AGG UTL was $4405, currently reporting as $4245.
Although I'm ready for my other accounts to report already, I think this hiccup may have helped me isolate the $$ factor vs the % factor.
@Anonymous wrote:@Trudy i'm really impressed at how much you've learned and how far you've came. I just wanted to mention that. Thanks.
With that said, there is no doubt that there are some dollar amount thresholds that affect score. We just haven't yet fully explored and documented them and how they work yet, but we have great people that are testing it. Now that I'm pretty sure $$ is a metric I will start paying more attention to that instead of solely focusing on %.
I would encourage you if it's convenient to further try to test and isolate these thresholds as a service to yourself and the community. Absolutely.
I don't quite understand why you think that would necessarily exclude the other theory. I need more information to understand your thought process. I guess one is not exclusive of the other. Both could very well be at play. With the same # of accounts reporting I initially thought that debunked previous thought with the score increases.
Plus, as usual I'm quite tired, so that probably doesn't help much. It may be obvious and it's just not clicking for me. Nevertheless do you have a thread on this? If so link please. If not, I would love to have all the specifics to review.That seems like a pretty hefty score jump on the scores for one threshold on dollar amount, I would think. And to complicate matters, we don't know if the threshold are the same on different versions. Are you 100% certain there were no other changes? Yep. My profile is not complicated and easy for me to track, which I do daily. Every balance report as of date falls within a specific time frame. Changed due dates long ago for a couple of reasons, but one, to make it easier to isolate changes. With EX at least, I can identify.
As Cassie said, individual has to be under 4% as well as aggregate. It will be interesting to see if that threshold exists on your scorecard, because as Cassie suggests it may just be a young scorecard thing. I would definitely like to know the results of your testing. Well since WF refuses to update this change will be isolated when they do so I'll let you know.
Only change for this cycle is the highlighted account below As noted above no significant change in UTL and the only change since nothing else with a balance from prior cycle had/has reported.
5/2
Likewise the number of accounts with a balance, I don't think we definitively know whether it's limited to revolvers, or whether it includes all accounts, or whether there are two separate metrics. I personally have a hunch it is only revolvers, but I have no evidence to base that upon.
Also I suspect you are speaking of Experian scores correct? Yes. I had a funny couple of points on the third myself but the only change being an extra revolver reporting with a couple hundred dollar balance. We know that did not increase my score.
Experian has been acting a little funny the past couple months and I've seen many things delayed with them. I wonder if it's possible the aging points may have been delayed for some reason. Just for S and G what were your aging metrics on the first? Unless the ages in sig and above pic has some significance and EX was delayed by a day, the only applicable change would be the $$ threshold IMO. Also stated in this thread, once that same account (and only account thusfar) reported to EQ I received 1 pt, but I was at 849 (possibly the buffer thing in play again). Waiting for all accts to update before I pull my 3B to see how this change impacted other scores.
While posting this the same one acct so far just updated with TU. Unlike all of the other TU score change alerts this time no factors provided. Will need to look back at the last time I hit 850 on TU to see if there were factors.
