Does anyone know more about how FICO Score 9 differs from Score 8 model?

[CreditDunce]

It sounds like you have fairly strong evidence that a couple of HP can really hurt FICO 9 scores.  At least for your profile. We will need a guinea pig to get their scores before an app spree and after to check.

I would also be interested if FICO 9 differentiates between different types of HPs.   You can rack up several HPs moving between utilities, cell phone, internet, landlord credit checks, etc.  None of which are credit seeking.  With FICO 8, the INQs don't hurt much.  But if your score really gets spanked, it could cause issues with other creditors.

[Thomas_Thumb]

As I recall, your scores are highr on Fico 09 than Fico 08. Perhaps Fico 09 is more forgiving toward high installment to loan ratios and that is improving your scores. However,. others with recent new credit and inquiries have reported significantly higher Fico 09 scores - they had clean files so it wasn't related to paid collections or impact of lates.

General thinking is Fico 09 may be more lenient toward new credit [edit add - at least new credit over 90 days age] than Fico 08. No clue as to why the one CRA scores you so differently.

Took me a year to figure out why EQ kills my score "randomly - they treat mu AMEX charge as some kind odd ball revolving credit account and evaluate it based on HB. In 2011 AMEX added some revolving feature to the charge card that could be activated in the event of less than full payment. I had AMEX remove that feature earlier this week and I filed a dispute with EQ saying they were incorrectly classifying my charge card as a credit card. Hopefully that will resolve EQ as an outlier in scoring.

My guess is it is not the inquiries but rather how the one CRA may be treating/categorizing an account (or accounts) "behind the scenes" that Fico 09 scores differently. I will update this post with a link to a post in another thread that compares Fico 08 and Fico 09 scores for a poster that has 9, 3 and 0 inquiries depending on CRA. for reference.

Here is the short cut to the post

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/My-First-850-on-Transunion/m-p/4465698#M224408

[Revelate]

@CreditDunce: maybe, I may try to guinea pig by doing a CLI request against an EQ puller (USAA) which would work for that and see if the 780 gets whacked, or maybe take a flier if they still offer a minimal rate card even if I probably don't qualify for it.  Alternatively I might have my collection come off around July, which I might try to capture though there's enough vagaries in timing on that I might skip it.  Worst case I pull in January and see if by that time EX is similarly astonishingly high.

@TT: Equifax FICO 9 is the only outlier.  The rest of the scores are relatively similar but for reference:

FICO 8: 701 / 691 / 711

FICO 9: 780 / 707 / 706

This is with 7/15 revolving accounts reporting a balance which isn't fully optimized for my file but I'm seeing if I can sort that out but I don't think it'll make that much difference.  Actually, the majority of my inquiries come off in the next 5 months, maybe I'll see what's what on EX around that time frame if my collection drops by then as for two interesting datapoints figuring the collection was discounted on FICO 9 anyway.

Edit: thank you for linking the post!  From Oilcan's data it's not the number of inquiries anyway, so I guess the very recent theory might make sense.  I'm kind of at a loss, either that or something went wrong but that's impossible to know.  My EQ Bankcard/Auto Enhanced industry options are similarly 780ish for FICO 9.  Wierd anyway as it's way way way outside the design goal (+/- 30 for older versions and newer ones were "supposed" to be much better akin to VS for consistency) for the modern algorithms.

TU will be depressed for another 1.5 years or more as I have an addition stupid issue there, but I would've expected EX FICO 9 to be roughly equivalent to EQ FICO 9 one way or the other... my VS scores are darned near identical still between those two versions at 788/791, TU VS 3.0 is now 730ish heh, c'est la vie.

[ch8ngeurstars]

---

@CreditDunce wrote:

---

@ch8ngeurstars wrote:

My FICO 9 scores are 30 to 60 points lower than my FICO 8 score!!! I have multiple paid collections, more than 10. I'm not proud of it but I thought for sure my fico 9 scores would sky rocket and instead they're going to screw me once companies start using them. It was really discouraging to see those scores today. It almost seems like everything that I have learned on this site to make my scores higher wo't work fro FICO 9....smdh.

---

I don't mean to pry... but does your CR also have multiple lates?  Especially the 90+ day late kind?  We know that paid CO's are not supposed to count, but we dont' know if FICO has upped the pain and/or time of pain for lates.  We are going to need a lot more data before we know how FICO 9 behaves. 

---

CreditDunce, I apologize for being two months late with this repsonse but I don't check the community as often as I should. Anyway, the answer unfortunately is "yes". I have multiple lates, spanning several years, from various accounts, ranging from 30 to 120 days plus. Again, I am not proud of it at all and have been working very hard the last few years to slowly increase my scores and improve my standing with each of my creditors. I appreciate the information you shared and if it is true (all evidence certainly points that way) I am pretty much back at square one once the Fico 9 becomes widely used, but then again I don't beleive any of my current creditors even use Fico 8 yet so thats one thing I have going for me. After doing extensive research I found some information pointing to the fact that the bureaues are still tweaking the algorithms for the Fico 9 score and we really shouldn't read too much into it in its early stages right now, but I havent found any definitive info on this, just hear say.

[Revelate]

---

@ch8ngeurstars wrote:

---

@CreditDunce wrote:

---

@ch8ngeurstars wrote:

My FICO 9 scores are 30 to 60 points lower than my FICO 8 score!!! I have multiple paid collections, more than 10. I'm not proud of it but I thought for sure my fico 9 scores would sky rocket and instead they're going to screw me once companies start using them. It was really discouraging to see those scores today. It almost seems like everything that I have learned on this site to make my scores higher wo't work fro FICO 9....smdh.

---

I don't mean to pry... but does your CR also have multiple lates?  Especially the 90+ day late kind?  We know that paid CO's are not supposed to count, but we dont' know if FICO has upped the pain and/or time of pain for lates.  We are going to need a lot more data before we know how FICO 9 behaves. 

---

CreditDunce, I apologize for being two months late with this repsonse but I don't check the community as often as I should. Anyway, the answer unfortunately is "yes". I have multiple lates, spanning several years, from various accounts, ranging from 30 to 120 days plus. Again, I am not proud of it at all and have been working very hard the last few years to slowly increase my scores and improve my standing with each of my creditors. I appreciate the information you shared and if it is true (all evidence certainly points that way) I am pretty much back at square one once the Fico 9 becomes widely used, but then again I don't beleive any of my current creditors even use Fico 8 yet so thats one thing I have going for me. After doing extensive research I found some information pointing to the fact that the bureaues are still tweaking the algorithms for the Fico 9 score and we really shouldn't read too much into it in its early stages right now, but I havent found any definitive info on this, just hear say.

---

Where did you read they were still tweaking the for-sale algorithms?

[SouthJamaica]

I sure don't know how it differs, but here are some possibilities worth monitoring:

-paid collections not counted in 9
-unpaid collections given more weight in 9
-medical collections given less weight in 9
-rental history counted in 9
-recent inquiries given less weight in 9
-average age of accounts given less weight in 9
-no. of accts reporting balance given more weight in 9
-premium for open as opposed to closed installment loans reduced in 9

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

I sure don't know how it differs, but here are some possibilities worth monitoring:

-paid collections not counted in 9
-unpaid collections given more weight in 9 [recent ones]
-medical collections given less weight in 9
-rental history counted in 9
-recent inquiries given less weight in 9
-average age of accounts given less weight in 9
-no. of accts reporting balance given more weight in 9
-premium for open as opposed to closed installment loans reduced in 9

---

Nice summary.

I'd add reduced impact of well aged delinquencies (lates) and derogatories with Fico 09 as something to monitor. No easy test for this.

Also, I have another 3B reports that provided additional Fico 08 to Fico 09 (and Fico 04) side by side date. Enough data is available by comparing results to conclude my earlier statement hypothesizing # cards reporting has more weight in F09 was in error. The larger data set indicates no significant difference in F09 vs F08 for # cards reporting.

However, the additional data re-enforces earlier conclusions that F04 does weight # cards reporting more heavily than F08.

[RonM21]

I hadn't thought much about this topic yet, but these are interesting data points (potentially) that have been mentioned.