Does the "mix" really matter?????

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@taxi818 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@taxi818 wrote:
I said that because on either credit.com or another board it said I was not getting a single point in credit age. And I believe it. Yes. Oldest account is 2 years 1 month old. But average is only 1.2 years old. When you heard me mention this I was hoping to get points when I reached 2 years from oldest. But sadly my score did not change. Looks like the average is what counts.

---

I'd be curious to hear exactly what credit monitoring service made this claim (you think it may have been credit.com but it may have been another one too).  Also would be curious to hear exactly what language they used. 

It's extremely hard to get ZERO points from any FICO category.  Here's a way to think about it. 

The lowest FICO 8 score one can get is 300.  That's assuming you earned zero points in every category. 

The highest score is 850.

The difference is 550.

10% of 550 is 55.  That suggests that even in the smallest categories the range of points is (roughly) 0-55 (it may be possible to get a bit more than the theoretical max from any particular category, but let's be conservative and go with 0-55 right now).  With a 15% category the range is quite a bit higher (0-83).

To get 0 points from a possible 83, you'd need to be the worst one could imagine in that category.  Remember that even people who have terrible credit scores (e.g. 500) are still getting 200 or more points in the various categories.  "Age of oldest account" is a well documented factor from the "Length of credit history" category.  Your age of oldest is far better than many people.  And you believe that your AAoA is 1.2, which is certainly higher than some people.

You can be sure you are getting more than 0 points from this category.  Certainly you will get far more, however, when your AAoA and your AoOA are higher than they are now; that is certainly true.

---

Yes. it was credit .com. and the language was pretty clear. It said unfornuately you are not earning any points in this catagory. as your oldest account is too new. and your average age is too low. That is what it said. So i figured i was getting 0 points from this part of fico.Edit. also. the way it to the math on each catagory. if Credit Age is 15% of a fico score. i count that there is a total of 127 points available in that catagory. So if im getting 0. I would be happy just to get 3% of those points. any would be golden. Im not sure when the credit age actually kicks in. as stated. oldest is 2.1 years. Average is 1.2 years. just know way to find out if im getting points there or not.

---

The folks at credit.com, Credit Karma and Credit Sesame are attempting to reverse engineer explanations on how various scoring models work. So take what is said accordingly. Same applies for all of us posting on MyFico. Focus on the fundamentals (known factors) which are stated in general terms on the MyFico website and in credit score/reports and all should fall in place over time. [credit.com is not Fico so results can not be correlated]

I really don't see 0 points for credit age as likely in any scoring model. Basically, no credit age = no scoreable credit file. The fact that you have a scoreable file means the deduct for this category should not be 100% - some level of category base points just for "being". Oldest account 2+ years would reduce point deduct for account age in Fico models (or adds to score depending on perspective). Not sure about EX National Equivalency model but no credit (reduction in deduct) for oldest account over 2 years does seem odd.

I have a different perspective on credit scoring. There are many ways to explain observed results - take my view for what its worth.

A common view for credit scoring is points given for certain things and taken away for others. I look at credit scoring models like gymnastics or diving.The fact that Fico 8 appears to have a buffer translates  - in my view - to score truncation  Certain routines/dives (scorecards) have a higher degree of difficulty (deeper and more varied credit) than others. Greater degree of difficulty (credit depth) translates to a higher potential score. Depending on the multiplier, final score (base score x multiplier) can exceed defined upper limit - so when this happens, score is truncated to max allowed.

Thus, it is easier for certain routines/dives (scorecards) to realize/maintain top scores. However, because the multiplier is higher, a significant error in execution results in a larger score drop than observed with other routines (scorecards). Conversely, if the infraction is minor (# card reporting a balance or somewhat high individual card UT%), the higher potential score may result in no observable score drop and a top score 10 (850) can still be realized.

 Edit Add: The primary scoring model used by credit.com is Experian National Equivalency. The secondary score they list is VantageScore 3.0.

[Anonymous]

Hello TomThumb!  Yup, the introduction of scorecards complicates the picture further.  For one thing, depending on the particular scorecard one is in (I think we concluded in a thread a few months ago that there 8 clean scorecards and two dirty ones) the full range (300-850) is not possible: each scorecard has a more limited range than the full 550.

But my feeling was that introducing the full complexity of scorecards wasn't necessary at that point to drive home the far simpler idea that there is no way that our friend Taxi could be getting absolutely no scoring benefit from having both (a) an AAoA of 1.2 years and (b) an age of oldest account of 2+ years.  The "Age" category is driven a lot by those two factors, and there are all kinds of people with lower values than he has on those two factors: hence it can't be the case that he is getting ZERO points.

Another useful thing that came out of the talk is that we discovered that Taxi was making inferences about his FICO scores from a website that doesn't use FICO.  I like VantageScore and I like Credit.com and Karma.  But they are just using a different system, so it's important for him to know that.  (I was pleased when Vantage started using the same 300-850 range, however.)

[Anonymous]

I just saw your footnote about credit.com's two scores.  You are right.  I tend to only pay attention to their Vantage score, since that way I have a single model between Karma and credit.com.

[Thomas_Thumb]

FYI -

Fico 8 has 12 score cards: 8 clean +2 dirty +2 additional (may relate to thin/newbie files - clean/dirty)

Fico 4 has 10 scorecards: 8 clean + 2 dirty.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@taxi818 wrote:
I said that because on either credit.com or another board it said I was not getting a single point in credit age. And I believe it. Yes. Oldest account is 2 years 1 month old. But average is only 1.2 years old. When you heard me mention this I was hoping to get points when I reached 2 years from oldest. But sadly my score did not change. Looks like the average is what counts.

---

I'd be curious to hear exactly what credit monitoring service made this claim (you think it may have been credit.com but it may have been another one too).  Also would be curious to hear exactly what language they used. 

It's extremely hard to get ZERO points from any FICO category.  Here's a way to think about it. 

The lowest FICO 8 score one can get is 300.  That's assuming you earned zero points in every category. 

The highest score is 850.

The difference is 550.

10% of 550 is 55.  That suggests that even in the smallest categories the range of points is (roughly) 0-55 (it may be possible to get a bit more than the theoretical max from any particular category, but let's be conservative and go with 0-55 right now).  With a 15% category the range is quite a bit higher (0-83).

To get 0 points from a possible 83, you'd need to be the worst one could imagine in that category.  Remember that even people who have terrible credit scores (e.g. 500) are still getting 200 or more points in the various categories.  "Age of oldest account" is a well documented factor from the "Length of credit history" category.  Your age of oldest is far better than many people.  And you believe that your AAoA is 1.2, which is certainly higher than some people.

You can be sure you are getting more than 0 points from this category.  Certainly you will get far more, however, when your AAoA and your AoOA are higher than they are now; that is certainly true.

---

In practical terms, since bucketing happens before anything else, 10% is a much much smaller number than 55 points.

[NRB525]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@NRB525 wrote:

Mine has Exceptional.

This would not include the PRG, the only "charge card" though that probably doesn't make a difference.

---

According to the FICO spokesman quoted in the link I gave above, the "charge card" adds to mix, but the "store card" does not.

---

Ok, well the Exceptional doesn't seem to require the charge card then.

I would agree a store card isn't identifiable to be a variable factor.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Perhaps, but the charge card can add to the mix count. Remember Ubuntu, he had an 850 score with only revolving accounts and an AMEX charge card. So, 850 is possible without an installment loan. Perhaps any 2 types of credit meet the requirement - the 2nd one not necessarily an installment loan.

I strongly suspect Ubuntu's mix rating was not Exceptional.

Another interesting point - Ubuntu only had an 850 with one CB. I believe only one of the 3 CBs categorizes the AMEX charge card different from revolving accounts. However, I may be mistaken on this.

P.S. my wireless keyboard really sucks. Never get posts right the 1st time. Too many keystrokes fail to register. Should proof responses before posting - Oh well.

[Anonymous]

I believe according to my last repot mine was very good.
With the following:
Closed - 3 student loans, 2 revolving
Open - 6 revolving
I have added a mortgage and an additional CC to the mix since. I'm curious to see if anything has changed.

[Revelate]

How are you defining charge card?

There's no reporting difference between my Amex and my CSP with the exception the Amex is listed as term of 1 month.

I'd be very, very cautious of suggesting there's a difference between them from a credit mix perspective.  I'm not going to partake in this discussion since there's no data, but I'm leery of suggesting people go get some random ass card they may need for some mix issue, fact is the traditional 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans likely max out that portion of the scorecard anyway, or come close enough for an 850 easily assuming the rest of the file supports it.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

How are you defining charge card?

There's no reporting difference between my Amex and my CSP with the exception the Amex is listed as term of 1 month.

I'd be very, very cautious of suggesting there's a difference between them from a credit mix perspective.  I'm not going to partake in this discussion since there's no data, but I'm leery of suggesting people go get some random ass card they may need for some mix issue, fact is the traditional 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans likely max out that portion of the scorecard anyway, or come close enough for an 850 easily assuming the rest of the file supports it.

---

I am not defining charge card.

Anthony  Sprauve is quoted in this link as indicated several times above.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthonysprauve

http://creditcardforum.com/blog/fico-score-credit-mix/

I am certainly not suggesting anyone go out and get a random ass card for any reason.

I even pointed out how you disagree with this analysis in a link above, but here it is again.

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Do-charge-cards-add-to-credit-mix/td-p/26...

I can however say that 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans likely does not max out that portion of the scorecard or it didn't appear to for me.

I can also say that it comes close enough to get an 848/845/850 as I was able to acheive it with a "very good" credit mix as represented by myFICO.

Since no one seems to actually read what I linked above, I am quoting it below for the skimmers

"“The score doesn’t see your Sears or Macy’s card differently than another credit card,” he says.

As for charge cards, FICO does view them differently from regular revolving cards, and they would therefore contribute to your credit mix, Sprauve says. There’s just one complication: Cards marketed as charge cards don’t always report to the bureaus as charge cards. If it doesn’t show up as a charge card on your reports, it won’t be factored into the credit mix portion of your FICO as a different type of card.

“It’s hard to distinguish between how the card is marketed and how it’s reported,” Sprauve says."

There is also documentation in that link to support TT's assertiong of having move revolving accounts than installment accounts quoting someone not affiliated with FICO. And while that person is proclaimed an "expert;"  the credit credentials I was able to find were no pedigree.