Hi everyone, new here, please forgive any misuse of acronyms. Perused the list, was amused by new meanings for Commanding Officer and Designated Hitter.
Lots of very interesting info on this board, expect to become a frequent reader. Here's my situation, would appreciate any insight you folks can provide ...
Desperately trying to break out of B+ territory to get best possible fixed rate on refi of hybrid (now adjustable) mortgage, originally 4%, currently 3.875% but could go up to 10% in few years worst case. Even small rate difference means a lot of money over 30 years, so would like to get into prime range if possible.
Have been working to sanitize (not "repair") my CBRs, got rid of old closed accounts (only those younger than average, tho), and started paying current CC charges just before billing cycle ends so zero balance reported.
Then discovered this forum, found out zero balance is BAAAD! Why??? System totally irrational?
Hoping to get some 4th-and-1 advice from experts here. In particular am wondering about these points ...
- Is it really true about zero balance? Seemed to work for me, paid off total balances of $237 (0.8% CL), FICO/TU score went up 10 points to 819. But still one dang point short of Promised Land! Maybe should go back to $10 balance or something? Mortgage balance did go down $532 meanwhile too, but just a small percentage of total of course.
- I have 3 active CC accounts, and one closed card, inactive last 5.5yr. Apparently too few? Dunno, EQ dinged me a while back for too many, same 3 active and 2 inactive then. Really don't want more, already resent my time spent managing just 3. How do you folks deal with 10, 20, 40!? And surely opening new accounts just to make optimum number would look pretty bad, no?
- EQ shows AAoA (correctly) as 16yr 11mo, but TU truncates to 16yr (even tho oldest account has yr & mo). AAoA will hit 17yr in 3 weeks. Worth waiting until then to apply?
- Under "What’s hurting your FICO® score", my report says "there are no actionable negative factors present". Seems to imply there are some secret, "non-actionable" factors present. Possibly based on incorrect info (also obtained secretly, since no errors visible in my CBRs)? Any way to divine what's going on?
- Both EQ and TU think "public records" means only negative items. But there is positive info too, pay my property taxes on time, haven't been arrested since Woodstock, show up and waste my time on jury duty when called, etc. Any way to get these taken into account? How about this "expansion score"?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Starting Score: EQ 804 - (April 2009) 
Many thanks LynetteM for comprehensive and helpful comments!
@LynetteM wrote:Hi Duke...did you get your true FICO scores? When you say "B+" territory, it made me wonder if you are looking at true FICOs. If you are, great. Where did you get your scores?
Yes, true FICO scores, obtained directly via 'myfico.com', tried to indicate that by saying "FICO/TU" but should have been more explicit, I guess. I know the difference, don't generally bother with FAKOs but did get some EX Plus scores 5-6 years ago for comparison.
As to the zero balance on credit cards...there seems to be an opinion that it varies by FICO provider. Apparently EQ likes to see a small balance, but TU doesn't mind the zero balance.
Aha!, a whole new dimension. Had always heard FICO scores differed because underlying CRA reports differed. My sanitizing of file and reported data has TU, EQ, and EX reports now identical (and correct!) in accounts, balances, ages, etc. Last June, TU and EQ scores (yes from myfico) were identical (813) too. Since then, have been getting TU report+score from myfico, and just report from EQ using unlimited access on Credit Watch Gold. Cheaper that way, figured scores should remain identical as long as reports do. But had small revolving balances for earlier identical scores, maybe scores different now with zero? So will pay for an EQ FICO, let you know how compares to yesterday's TU.
If you have 3 cards, that number should be fine. If a balance shows, let it be on only one account, and that still keeps you under half of your accounts showing a balance. People have many cards for many reasons...cashback rewards, airline miles, etc. Some people want what they see as the security of having a high available credit limit.
OK, takes all kinds. As long as 3 cards is "enough". I don't have free time for lots of cards, and already a drag to keep up with airline FF accounts just from actual flights I take. From what I hear, high available credit limit disappears as soon as you use more than a few percent of it...
I don't think that having an AAoA of 17 yrs vs. 16 yrs 11 mos will make any difference..
Agree, certainly. But was trying to contrast 17yr vs. 16yr (without 11 mos) as shown on TU report. Probably still not a big deal, I guess?
Thanks again!
@Anonymous wrote:If you have a true FICO of 819, then you are not B+, but very prime....but since you indicated hitting 820 was your goal, I think you are referring to an alternative score, which there are many.
Haven't you heard, 820 is the new 720? And where I come from, 82% is B+.
JK 
on both those remarks, but look-- very little money is actually being lent out, and I need a mortgage in 200K-300K range, so want to present better risk than the competition. My score reports, from FICO and FAKOs both, usually say better than 90%-95%. But maybe not good enough these days. And TheNewWorldMan's very enjoyable "Credit Scoring Rubric" has a boundary at 820. Realize this was intended as light-hearted humor, but must also reflect something of reality.
Yes, true FICO score via 'myfico.com', tried to indicate that by saying "FICO/TU" but see I should have been more explicit. Previous FICO scores going back in time were 813 (identical EQ&TU 2009/6/21), 804 (EQ 2009/4/10), 812 (EQ 2008/6/2), 808 (EQ 2008/2/23, 782 (EQ 2004/6/17). Again, all true FICO scores; got a few EX Plus scores too, generally consistent FWIW. So am making slow zigzag progress.
BTW, WRT myfico.com site, I found their simulator to be basically useless. Won't simulate paying off balances since there are none, OK. But "best action" is "pay your bills on time for [any number 1-24] months", all predicting score higher by 0-20 points. Have been paying on time, in full, for over 25 years, so don't really believe few more will do anything.
Other than that, you could get it from your mortgage/loan officer once they run your credit....
Problem with this is I need a good score before app'ing. If I get from LO, and have to fix further, then app again, second score will be dragged down by first inq. Yeah, I know inqs are aggregated within a few weeks, but too short for any change to take effect. Basically, seems you only get one chance to do it right, all downhill after that.
Many thanks for responding!
@llecs wrote:
@Duke-of-Earl wrote:Haven't you heard, 820 is the new 720? And where I come from, 82% is B+.
Well, technically, FICO runs on a 300-850 range and your grade would be over 96%. Looks like an "A" to me! Congrats BTW.
Yeah, I know. That's why I went on --
JK
Thanks for the congrats, anyway. Still hoping for 820.
@Duke-of-Earl wrote:Many thanks LynetteM for comprehensive and helpful comments!
As to the zero balance on credit cards...there seems to be an opinion that it varies by FICO provider. Apparently EQ likes to see a small balance, but TU doesn't mind the zero balance.
Aha!, a whole new dimension. Had always heard FICO scores differed because underlying CRA reports differed. My sanitizing of file and reported data has TU, EQ, and EX reports now identical (and correct!) in accounts, balances, ages, etc. Last June, TU and EQ scores (yes from myfico) were identical (813) too. Since then, have been getting TU report+score from myfico, and just report from EQ using unlimited access on Credit Watch Gold. Cheaper that way, figured scores should remain identical as long as reports do. But had small revolving balances for earlier identical scores, maybe scores different now with zero? So will pay for an EQ FICO, let you know how compares to yesterday's TU.
Yup, you were right about EQ, FICO score there down to 809. How much does it take to be non-zero? Is $10 enough? Score report says 7% of CL is typical, but that's way more than I usually charge per month, and I absolutely refuse to carry any revolving balance and pay interest. Even 1% CL would be a stretch. Sigh, Promised Land receding over the horizon, another hoop to jump, even farther removed from actual creditworthiness, another month to wait... Anyway, many thanks for cluing me in on bizarre zero balance nonsense, more generally that FICO algorithms differ among CRAs. Trust it will pay off in the end.
So comparing my report to the famous High Achievers club I can't join, I see my AAoA (16yr/11mo) and oldest account (34/6) are well over the norm. Am I being penalized for this? Basically, for being too old? I have two 30yr-plus CC accounts, could close one and get down to AAoA 14/0, still beyond the recommended 6-12 yrs. Or close both for AAoA 10/7, but then oldest account would be 15/0, less than typical 19 yrs.
