Hello fellow myFico'ers!
I'm beginng to wonder if some Fico models give points for a decreased balance even when it doesn't cause it to cross over on an individual or aggregrate threshold. In light of the unexpected 30pt+ increase last month, I decided to let one of my cards which usually have a good size balance, report a slightly lower balance than it should after statement cuts. I received an alert yesterday indicating a 9pt increase on EQ.
A couple of things to note:
- This CC balance usually reports a higher monthly charges. Always PIF after statement cuts
- I made sure the balance was lower than the previous statement cut balances
- Aggregate util % before the alert: 4.08%
- Aggregate util % after the alert: 4.07%
- Individual util before the alert: 23.85%
- Individual util after the alert: 23.72%
8 Total open CCs
93,250 open TL available
3/8 open CCs reporting a balance. None of the other CC balances have been reported yet.
EQ: 9 point increase alert. Reported the specific CC balance change of $7.
TU: no point increase alert. Reported a total balance change for all BankCards (not a specific) amounting to the $7
EX: no point increase alert. Reported the specific CC balance change of $7.
This is the same thing that happened earlier this month.
On Feb 1st, EQ was the only CB that had an alertable event which reflected the 30pt+ increase. Although TU and EX also had an alertable event, they did not reflect a point increase. However, all three CBs did indeed have a 30pt+ increase when I pulled the 3B reports. Given this, I suspect that TU and EX will also show a 9pt or so increase when I pull the 3B report for March in a few days.
I know there will be changes to my CRs by the time I pull them. I will say, that between last reporting and this 9pt increase, all upcoming changes to my CRs have not reported yet saved this one, so they should not come into play for this specific scenario.
Anyone know if some Fico models give points for a decreased balance (assuming it is the only change that occurred) even though a threshold was not crossed?
[edited] The 30+pt increase happened Feb 1st, not last month. Apparently March came early for me. 
@newhis wrote:From the information I read and from DWs reports, I can say that there are many variables in play and we agree that there are general rules.
Sometimes score can go up or down without crossing the general rule, it doesn't mean that the rule is bad, the change could be other variable for your profile.
I no longer worry that much for score changes. I just keep using/paying the cards/loan. I'm sure that if I just let 1 card report a small balance and others at $0 and my loan is less than 9% my score will be ok for anything new I need.
newhis, thank you for responding. 
Agree. So far with my own profile, I find it is much easier to explain (or find a reason for..) a drop in a score than an increase in a score. This is especially true once typical areas (inquiries, AAoA, AoOA, aggregate util %, AoYA, etc.) are examined and subsequently dismissed by process of elimination .
My attempts to understand Fico Scoring beyond the basics, is frustrating, but then again, that's the point I suspose. 
@Anonymous wrote:Hello LOTR. It looks to me like your are trying to give us a "before" and "after" summary of your utilization. Your actual wording, however was this:
- Aggregate util % before the alert: 4.08%
- Aggregate util % before the alert: 4.07%
Is it possible that you meant this?
- Aggregate util % before the alert: 4.08%
- Aggregate util % after the alert: 4.07%
Not being picky... just trying to help you get the best responses to your question.
If I am understanding you right, my two cents is that it is immensely unlikely that the balance change caused your score change. The individual and total U stayed at the exact same integer percent value.
Much more likely is that something else changed (from perspective of EQ FICO 8). These changes can be very subtle. They could include any of your three age factors changing (Age of Youngest Account, Age of Oldest Account, Avaerage Age of Accounts). And those three factors are always changing every month. There's even other subtler age-related factors, like the percentage of your accounts that are new (you could have one account aging from 11 months to 12 months). It could also be an inquiry getting older. It could be a ton of other things.
As I said, just my two cents.
CGID, thanks for responding. Yes, I meant after ... I corrected my original post - thanks for catching that!
The youngest account is fairly young (opened in Dec, first reported in Jan). I figured it's too young to receive points - especially since I received points for adding it earlier this month - but I guess maybe not.
For AAoA and AoOA, I have no idea what all the main thresholds are that tend to yield points, but I figured a AAoA going from say 9 yrs 10 ms -> 9 yrs 11 ms is unlikely to be a threshold. Same with AoOA - with a change from a 21 yrs 5 ms -> 21 yrs 6 ms.
No inquiries aged off...
One other thing you mentioned: the % of new accounts. What exactly is the CC anniversay date from a Fico scoring point of view? Is it on the 1st of the anniversary month or on the exact date of the anniversary month?
Also, any idea at what age an account is no longer considered "new"? I have a CC that turned 1 yr old earlier this month. If 1 yr is still considered new, then the % of new accounts did not change since last reporting. Otherwise, it did change and may also be the reason for the increase.
@Anonymous wrote:I believe JLK has explained to me before that all current and prior FICO models base their age based calculations on the first of the month. Thus an account opened on April 29 would be considered 0 months old on April 30 and 1 month old on May 1. (Even though it is in fact two days old.)
How the phrase "new account" is defined for the scoring factor "number of new accounts" is anybody's guess, but the most common guess I have heard is one year. If so, you had one fewer new accounts right around the time that you received a score bump and that may have well been it.
I made another correction to my original post. Originally I stated that the 30+pt was from last month. It was actually received on Feb 1st. Athough I expected a score boost knowing that account was turning 1 yr old, I wasn't expecting that big of a boost. However, admittedly, other things factored in (mainly, % of CC reporting a balance)
But given your statement, since that one CC turned 1 yrs old Feb 1st, shouldn't it have been reflected in those 30+pt on Feb 1st as well as the change in % of new accounts?
I know it's anyone's guess since we don't actually have access to the full models breakdown. Unless the 3B reports reveal something when I pull them, I have a feeling this one is going to the unexplained Fico points graveyard...
Thank you and I appreciate all of the input received.
OP, what are you rebuilding from? Are there any remaining baddies reporting in your file?
If so, then that messes up any trending, makes it difficult to extract the aging baddies from other moves in utilization, number of cards, new accounts, aging of the file, etc. There can be unexplained moves both up and down. With the 30pt increase, that sounds like one of the wild moves associated with a baddie aging out.
@NRB525 wrote:OP, what are you rebuilding from? Are there any remaining baddies reporting in your file?
If so, then that messes up any trending, makes it difficult to extract the aging baddies from other moves in utilization, number of cards, new accounts, aging of the file, etc. There can be unexplained moves both up and down. With the 30pt increase, that sounds like one of the wild moves associated with a baddie aging out.
NRB525, thank you for responding.
I have received no point increase alerts between the 30pts increase alert and the 9pts increase alert.
Here are the stats I posted earlier this month in adifferent post outlining my negatives, baddies, etc.:
STATS as of Oct 2016
(before 2016 last quarter new TLs were applied for)
Fico 8 scores EQ: 684 TU: 682 EX: 723
AoOA 21 yrs 1 m
AAoA EQ: 14yr 4m TU: 13 yrs 11m EX: 13 yrs 9m
1 PR: Tax Lien (EQ and TU only), release and PIF Jan 2013
1 account being paid as agreed
Negative indicators: EQ: 1 TU: 1 EX: 1 *
Total accounts: EQ: 14 TU: 13 EX: 13 **
Inquires: EQ: 2 TU: 1 EX: 0
Open installments: 0
Age of Most Recently Open Account: 8m
Util %: EQ: 4% TU: 5%: EX: 4%
STATS as of Jan 2 2017
(after all new CC TLs reported)
(before Alliant reported)
Fico 8 scores EQ: 694 TU: 708 EX: 740
AoOA 21 yrs 4 m
AAoA EQ: 10 yrs 3m TU: 9 yrs 9m EX: 9 yrs 8m
1 PR: Tax Lien (EQ and TU only), release and PIF Jan 2013
2 account being paid as agreed
Negative indicators: EQ: 1 TU: 1 EX: 1 *
Total accounts: EQ: 20 TU: 19 EX: 19 **
Inquires: EQ: 7 TU: 2 EX: 2
Note: for TU 3 inquiries are listed, but only 2 are counted as 2 are listed twice from NFCU on same day and beta shows a count of only 2 for TU which agrees with an independent TU report
Open installments: 0
Age of Most Recently Open Account: 1m
Util %: EQ: 6% TU: 7%: EX: 6%
STATS as of Jan 12 2017
(after Alliant reported, received a 17-20 point increase)
Fico 8 scores EQ: 712 TU: 725 EX: 760
- no report pulled
STATS as of Jan 18 2017
(after a card reported a zero balance mid Jan there was a 4 pt Fico 8 EQ score increase)
Fico 8 scores EQ: 716 TU: 725 EX: 760
- no report pulled
STATS as of Feb 2 2017
(received 30-35 point increase)
Fico 8 scores EQ: 751 TU: 757 EX: 792
AoOA 21 yrs 5 m
AAoA EQ: 9 yrs 10m TU: 9 yrs 4m EX: 9 yrs 3m
1 PR: Tax Lien (EQ and TU only), release and PIF Jan 2013
7 account being paid as agreed
Negative indicators: EQ: 1 TU: 1 EX: 1 *
Total accounts: EQ: 21 TU: 20 EX: 20 **
Inquires: EQ: 7 TU: 2 EX: 2
Note: for TU 3 inquiries are listed, but only 2 are counted as 2 are listed twice from NFCU on same day and beta shows a count of only 2 for TU which agrees with an independent TU report
Open installments: 1
Age of Most Recently Open Account: 2m
Util %: EQ: 4% TU: 5%: EX: 4%
* This is from a car loan that is now closed, PIF, had three 30-day lates (Nov 2010, Feb 2011, Mar 2011)
**The missing account for TU is a closed AU user CC, closed in 2008 with a TL of $7,200
**The missing account for EX is a student loan, closed Sep 2011 (tranferred to a different servicer)
I have not pulled March's 3B reports yet, but I can say that I have not received any other alerts as of yet except what I mentioned earlier ( the change in that one CC balance of $7).