Datapoint: Aggregate utilization below 39%

[FICOdawg]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@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. 

---

I'll update as I go along the payoff path.  The simulated scores only move at 39/29/19 no change at 35/25.  

In December a bunch of things will change at once with my car loan being 12 months old and the HP dropping off.

I'm curious when my category of amount of credit used goes from good to very good.   I'll assume exceptional is sub 9%

[Thomas_Thumb]

I would not expect scores to change at those levels. The lack of change adds some validity to the sim, imo. Results also show the sim incorporates AG UT thresholds. Again, a good sign for the sim. Some of the AG UT thresholds (49%, 29%, 9% and 5%) have been deduced from years of poster data. A possible 19% threshold  has been seen in data (I'll post a graph from 2016 below). Your 39% from AG UT is a curiousity that merits further exploration with supporting data from other posters.

We have seen highest card UT thresholds at 100%, 89%, 49% and 29% with 69% being likely but lacking much confirming data. So card intervals show 20% (excluding 100%).

The sim data, along with your 39% datapoint and limited data at 19%, suggest AG UT intervals might be 10% except for the minor one at 5%.

What does the sim show now if you take your AG UT back above 40%, 50%, 60% and 70%? Unfortunately, if the sim considers high card UT (it might not), AG results could be confounded.

[FICOdawg]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

I would not expect scores to change at those levels. The lack of change adds some validity to the sim, imo. Results also show the sim incorporates AG UT thresholds. Again, a good sign for the sim. Some of the AG UT thresholds (49%, 29%, 9% and 5%) have been deduced from years of poster data. A possible 19% threshold  has been seen in data (I'll post a graph from 2016 below). Your 39% from AG UT is a curiousity that merits further exploration with supporting data from other posters.

We have seen highest card UT thresholds at 100%, 89%, 49% and 29% with 69% being likely but lacking much confirming data. So card intervals show 20% (excluding 100%).

The sim data, along with your 39% datapoint and limited data at 19%, suggest AG UT intervals might be 10% except for the minor one at 5%.

What does the sim show now if you take your AG UT back above 40%, 50%, 60% and 70%? Unfortunately, if the sim considers high card UT (it might not), AG results could be confounded.

---

I'll track both individual and ag until.     With FICO 10T on the horizon I'm motivated to pay off my remaining card as I don't want to get dinged.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Here is a graph of the 2016 poster data mentioned above.

It is unfortunate you are abandoning the paydown plan. F10T looks at utilization trend over time (6 month time frame?). Is that attribute being trended improving, staying the same or worsening. From a trending perspective, sustained improvement likely would score better than a flatline trend - imo.

[FICOdawg]

I'm not abandoning the pay down.    As I wrote previously my net pay down on my card is around 1300/mo after interest so I'll cross several thresholds along the way.  I'm graphing it out.    

What is going to be different is I'll be AZE1 (EX still has not updated yet).      Looking at the graph there's obviously differences in variables as I'm already knocking on 780s even at 34% AG.   Another month Ill be below 29%.

Other possible variables is will my 33 year old CC that closed in Oct 2015 drop off my report this October and impact my Avg age.   TU says my avg age is 7 years and sim days in 5 months ill gain 5 points.    EX & EQ has me at 8 years 9 months.    The difference is that old CC not on TU report.