I got to thinking about this when reading another thread on here recently. My question is within the same scorecard and within the same scoring criteria factor (slice of the Fico pie) on that scorecard, can different factors impact one another?
I think it's easiest to explain what I mean by offering an example, using the Amounts Owed category.
Cornelius and Rupert have identical profiles outside of the Amounts Owed category. They both have 10 [identical] CCs. They are both at the same reported aggregate utilization amount; We'll say 12%. Cornelius has non-zero balances reported on all 10 of his CCs, where Rupert has non-zero balances reported 5 of his CCs. This would naturally mean that Rupert's balances on average are twice those of Cornelius in order to arrive at the same aggregate utilization percentage, but lets assume that no individual card thresholds are crossed. This could mean that Cornelius has all $120 balances on 10 $1000 limit cards and Rupert has $240 balances on just 5 of those same $1000 limit cards, for example. If both Cornelius and Rupert were to pay their aggregate utilization down across the known threshold to (say) 7%, while maintaining the exact same number of accounts with a balance, would their scores both increase the exact same amount?
Rupert's starting score on an otherwise equal profile would likely be higher since he's at 50% of accounts with a balance compared to Cornelius' 100%. For the sake of numbers let's say Rupert is starting at 740 and Cornelius at 730 because of that. Will the aggregate utilization threshold being crossed be "worth" the same number of points to both individuals... say 20 points... meaning that Rupert bumps up to 760 and Cornelius to 750? Or, is it at all possible that the number/percentage of accounts with a balance factor can influence (signal strength) the score gain realized from the utilization threshold crossing on these otherwise equal profiles?
I'm not sure if the answer here is a definite "No" or "Yes" or if it's a we don't know at this time.
