Datapoint: Aggregate utilization below 39%

[FICOdawg]

---

@Varsity_Lu wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:I just read a poster mention gaining 11 points for aggregate going from 16% to 14% due to a CLI on a $0 balance card. So no card UT change and no AG balance change. The CLI was a trigger event for a pull but, the score may have been influenced by a prior, non trigger, event. Otherwise 15% could be an AG threshold.

Let's assume aggregate UT has no thresholds and the above 11 point gain is from a 2% drop in AG UT. That suggests each 20% change in AG UT would impact score 110 points. Anyone buy that?

---

Are we certain the data on the post you mentioned above is accurate?  Not sure everyone is buying the story of that 11 point jump with the only trigger being a 2% util drop.

---

I think it's not linear at all.     My aggregate went from 44% down to 39,5% which shows in EX app as 39%.     I even screen shot the EX app lol.
TU and EQ haven't updated can show you the 44% on those.     Nothing else changed and credit card balance on my highest  card is at 70.7% so no threshold crossed there either for me.

The sim says paying down my card to 1% would net me 50 pts.       I'll update when I reach each threshold.    My progress is about as delineated you can get with single variable changes.   Next month I'll be below 69% on my individual card but I'll also pay my Marriott card before closing date so will be two factors changing since I'll be AZE1.      Maybe I live with AZE2 for another month for fun and get the datapoint....

[FICOdawg]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Actually the point gain listed in the other thread was 15 points, not 11. The 11 points was this OP. I got it crossed.

Do I believe there is a  major aggregate UT threshold at 15%, highly unlikely - imo. However, the AG UT variable appears well isolated with nothing else changing - unless the boost came from a past non trigger event.

The point being made is Fico employees have stated all utilizations are scored in discrete intervals - not continuous x = f(y). If it were continuous there would be no double digit "jumps" associated with some minor UT changes and no score movement with other minor UT changes.

---

None of the sims show needle move at 15% but that OP also said highest card went below 49%.   You'd have to clarify with them.

I will hit 29% aggregate in 3 months so that will be the next one.   That will still leave me slightly above 50% UT on the individual card.   My last card to pay off also happens to be my highest limit.    Next CLI I can get won't be until early December.    I hate owing money to CC lol.    Never again.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@FICOdawg wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Actually the point gain listed in the other thread was 15 points, not 11. The 11 points was this OP. I got it crossed.

Do I believe there is a  major aggregate UT threshold at 15%, highly unlikely - imo. However, the AG UT variable appears well isolated with nothing else changing - unless the boost came from a past non trigger event.

The point being made is Fico employees have stated all utilizations are scored in discrete intervals - not continuous x = f(y). If it were continuous there would be no double digit "jumps" associated with some minor UT changes and no score movement with other minor UT changes.

---

None of the sims show needle move at 15% but that OP also said highest card went below 49%.   You'd have to clarify with them.

---

I read the thread clearly. The OP got a CLI on a card with a $0 balance. So card UT was 0% before and 0% after. Only change was aggregate UT going from 16% to 14%. The OP states that highest card was 47%. No paydown on that card for this data point (per the OP). 

Thus, my mention of a potential prior paydown or aging event that perhaps was not a trigger event for a score update.

[FICOdawg]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@FICOdawg wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Actually the point gain listed in the other thread was 15 points, not 11. The 11 points was this OP. I got it crossed.

Do I believe there is a  major aggregate UT threshold at 15%, highly unlikely - imo. However, the AG UT variable appears well isolated with nothing else changing - unless the boost came from a past non trigger event.

The point being made is Fico employees have stated all utilizations are scored in discrete intervals - not continuous x = f(y). If it were continuous there would be no double digit "jumps" associated with some minor UT changes and no score movement with other minor UT changes.

---

None of the sims show needle move at 15% but that OP also said highest card went below 49%.   You'd have to clarify with them.

---

I read the thread clearly. The OP got a CLI on a card with a $0 balance. So card UT was 0% before and 0% after. Only change was aggregate UT going from 16% to 14%. The OP states that highest card was 47%. No paydown on that card for this data point (per the OP). 

Thus, my mention of a potential prior paydown that perhaps was not a trigger event for a score update.

---

Trying to learn all the ins and out to not only raise my score but bullet proof it.    I'll still never understand why a CC closing and due date aren't automatically the same.

[FICOdawg]

Using Creditwise which just updated showed my TU Aggregate UTIL go from 39 to 34% but two accounts still show balance so it didn't grab the Chase update (or Chase hasn't send that update yet) but I gained 4 points.    Waiting for Experian to update.   Equifax score will have too many changes as it's way behind on my payments toward balances etc.

Playing with the Creditwise simulator it shows no score increase based on balance until I reach 29% aggregate and indicates I'll gain +10 points (783)  Then another 10 points at 19% (793).   Then I take it to 9% and simulator puts me at 813 so 20 pts there.     Then, it adds +5 points once below 5%.  

But here is the real kicker.   If I simulate it to zero balance , score maxes out to 803.    If I leave a $1 balance, it leaves me at 818 which indicates the AZEO penalty is 15 points.    

[Zoostation1]

@FICOdawg I wouldn't put stock in ANY of the simulators.  Outside of aging and maybe the BK drops, I've not found them to be accurate on most metrics.  

[FICOdawg]

---

@Zoostation1 wrote:

@FICOdawg I wouldn't put stock in ANY of the simulators.  Outside of aging and maybe the BK drops, I've not found them to be accurate on most metrics.  

---

I'm just documenting it for fun at this point to see how they line up.      I certainly  don't have trust in them as FICO would be giving away their algorithm.    The most interesting thing to learn about for me is impact if you carry over a balance even short term.     I sometimes used to carry a balance over waiting for a travel expense report to get paid that would have put me over 10% until on the card.   Definitely won't be doing that anymore.

I would like to know the AZE1 data point.    If it's only a few points I may not bother with it but if it's 10 or more I'll definitely clear balances before the statement closing date.

[FicoMike0]

Some have reported a 20 point all zero penalty.

[FICOdawg]

---

@FicoMike0 wrote:

Some have reported a 20 point all zero penalty.

---

I've seen a range to data points posted.    10-20 point for not carrying debt on credit cards and is egregious.       It's one of the handful of things that's makes FICO lose credibility and proves they are in bed with the banks.

You'd think FICO 10T would eliminated AZE1 and if someone had any balances in the last 24 months the AZE1 penalty would be eliminated.   They can't have it both ways.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@FICOdawg wrote:

Using Creditwise which just updated showed my TU Aggregate UTIL go from 39 to 34% but two accounts still show balance so it didn't grab the Chase update (or Chase hasn't send that update yet) but I gained 4 points.    Waiting for Experian to update.   Equifax score will have too many changes as it's way behind on my payments toward balances etc.

Playing with the Creditwise simulator it shows no score increase based on balance until I reach 29% aggregate and indicates I'll gain +10 points (783)  Then another 10 points at 19% (793).   Then I take it to 9% and simulator puts me at 813 so 20 pts there.     Then, it adds +5 points once below 5%.  

But here is the real kicker.   If I simulate it to zero balance , score maxes out to 803.    If I leave a $1 balance, it leaves me at 818 which indicates the AZEO penalty is 15 points.    

---

Could you run the actual 5% increments as defined? Or - does the simulator only look at changes from current UT to a designated lower level? If the later can you plug in:

Current (34%) =>28%, 34% => 23%, 34% => 18%, 34% => 13%, 34% => 8%, 34% => 3%.

It appears the simulator is suggesting aggregate thresholds at: 29% (moderate), 19% (moderate) 9% (major) and 5% (minor). However, it would be insightful if you could run the above and summarize findings in a table.

EOD - try to test these aggregate thresholds with your paydowns AND compare against similar incremental paydowns (4%-5%) where no established/hypothesized threshold is crossed.

* incremental paydowns with no point change can be as insightful in data analysis as those with minor (5-10), moderate (11-25) or major (over 25) point changes. Under 5 point change is insignificant, imo, and not threshold designation worthy.