EQ -4 with 1 card > 9% util?

[Anonymous]

I currently have 3 of 7 cards with reported balances on EQ.  Citi (one of the 3 cards with a reported balance) did a mid-cycle reporting on me, which took my $1.00 reported balance to $1368.  This change took that card from 1% utilization to 11%.  EQ score dropped 4 points.  My EX score did not change with the same reporting and my Citi account doesn't show up on TU so nothing to report there.

I was always under the impression that if your aggregate utilization did not cross above 8.99% with taking a single card into the 9%-28.99% range that you wouldn't see a score ding, but perhaps I was mistaken.

[Revelate]

Pay it down to like $100 and see if there is a change with the rest of the file held fixed, was the $1 explicitly reported?

I've never personally seen a drop until much higher than 30% even personally but that was on a dirty file and my only high individual utilization on a non-derogatory scorecard was a >90% so YMMV.

While I airstruck that balance I can probably drop another $150 on the card to get it above the 10% individual line.  Sadly Discover graduated my card, though I still have an older $500 secured card to try to nail down individual breakpoints which we still don't have fantastic data even with how "easy" it is to test.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the $1.00 was definitely reported and visible on all reports.  I typically only let $1.00 report on the cards that I do allow balances to report on.  Only on those that I know report $1.00, which I started a thread on a few weeks back.

My regular Citi reporting date is in 2 days and they'll be reporting a balance in the $300-$400 range, or about 3% of the credit limit.  7 days from now I can pull my 3B scores again from CCT for free and no other accounts should change their reporting within that time period.  If my score ticks back up 4 points, I definitely received a ding for having one revolver report above 9%.

[Anonymous]

Does EQ ding for 1/3 cards showing a balance or 1/2?

If 1/3 that’s the ding I bet.

[Anonymous]

Spoke to soon...

Chase reported 28% to EX (no change) and TU (-4).

Paid it off a few days later to $0. Ex reported the pay off, no change.

But then EQ alerts for both the balance and payoff days late.... -1 for balance, +1 for payoff.

Aggregate util was 3% paid off and 4% with balance. Two other cards reporting 5% or less out of 10 cards total reporting.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Yes, the $1.00 was definitely reported and visible on all reports.  I typically only let $1.00 report on the cards that I do allow balances to report on.  Only on those that I know report $1.00, which I started a thread on a few weeks back.

My regular Citi reporting date is in 2 days and they'll be reporting a balance in the $300-$400 range, or about 3% of the credit limit.  7 days from now I can pull my 3B scores again from CCT for free and no other accounts should change their reporting within that time period.  If my score ticks back up 4 points, I definitely received a ding for having one revolver report above 9%.

---

As mentioned by ABCD I wonder if Fico sees the increased balance as another card reporting and whether it crosses a cards reporting threshold. I question whether $1.00 reporting is looked at as a card with a balance in all cases. Not a fan of $1.00 testing for evaluating impact of card count with balances. It would be a better test if you have the card report a $5 to $10 balance instead of $1 - while keeping other factors constant.

I have observed $1 charges posting when reserving hotel stays and seminars on credit cards. I have seen that with some gas purchases as well. The full charge comes through as a separate transaction at a later date. Perhaps this is some type of account verification.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Spoke to soon...

Chase reported 28% to EX (no change) and TU (-4).
Paid it off a few days later to $0. Ex reported the pay off, no change.
But then EQ alerts for both the balance and payoff days late.... -1 for balance, +1 for payoff.
Aggregate util was 3% paid off and 4% with balance. Two other cards reporting 5% or less out of 10 cards total reporting.

---

EQ is hyper in # cards reporting balances. It would be a better data point for someone to test individual card utilization on a "lower limit" credit card while ensuring # cards reporting balances remains constant - and ideally be the same cards. Another critical criteria is maintaining aggregate utilization before/after in the low to mid single digits say between 1% and 5%.

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

I question whether $1.00 reporting is looked at as a card with a balance in all cases. Not a fan of $1.00 testing for evaluating impact of card count with balances. It would be a better test if you have the card report a $5 to $10 balance instead of $1 - while keeping other factors constant.

---

I don't question it, as I've at one point or another had all of my cards report $1.00 and have used that card/reporting as AZEO and I've never seen the 15-20 point score drop associated with all cards reporting $0.  $1.00 reported "counts" as a card reporting a non-zero balance for FICO scoring.  I've done this with Chase, Capital One, Synchrony, Citi and Amex.  I've done it with $3.00 on Discover, as $1 and $2 are "small balance credit" reduced/reported as $0. 

[Revelate]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Spoke to soon...

Chase reported 28% to EX (no change) and TU (-4).
Paid it off a few days later to $0. Ex reported the pay off, no change.
But then EQ alerts for both the balance and payoff days late.... -1 for balance, +1 for payoff.
Aggregate util was 3% paid off and 4% with balance. Two other cards reporting 5% or less out of 10 cards total reporting.

---

EQ is hyper in # cards reporting balances. It would be a better data point for someone to test individual card utilization on a "lower limit" credit card while ensuring # cards reporting balances remains constant - and ideally be the same cards. Another critical criteria is maintaining aggregate utilization before/after in the low to mid single digits say between 1% and 5%.

---

No doubt regarding EQ; EQ FICO 8 for me has always been 1/3 of cards reporting a balance is a ding, but 1/2 on the other two bureaus.  That doesn't seem to have changed on my clean file either.

It's going to be a while to get good data but I picked up a 90% datapoint on my current file, and will toss the HOA payment ($420) on a $500 credit card and just slow pay it off.

What breakpoints do you think would be relevant?  90% one is clear, probably 80% just to see if it counts the same as 90%, 50% 30% 10% ?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

---

EQ is hyper in # cards reporting balances. It would be a better data point for someone to test individual card utilization on a "lower limit" credit card while ensuring # cards reporting balances remains constant - and ideally be the same cards. Another critical criteria is maintaining aggregate utilization before/after in the low to mid single digits say between 1% and 5%.

---

No doubt regarding EQ; EQ FICO 8 for me has always been 1/3 of cards reporting a balance is a ding, but 1/2 on the other two bureaus.  That doesn't seem to have changed on my clean file either.

It's going to be a while to get good data but I picked up a 90% datapoint on my current file, and will toss the HOA payment ($420) on a $500 credit card and just slow pay it off.

What breakpoints do you think would be relevant?  90% one is clear, probably 80% just to see if it counts the same as 90%, 50% 30% 10% ?

---

My belief is there are break points at 89% (max out), 69% (leveraged), 49% (high), 29% (responsible) and 9% (frugal) utilization rates. Certainly all profiles won't experience score shifts at all thresholds but, lack of a score shift does not equate to the threshold not existing. This is the type of test to confirn, as opposed to disprove UT% thresholds. In any case, if you can use a bank revolving credit card for this test it would be best.

As mentioned in many other threads I saw no score change when I posted balances resulting in 52% UT and 75% UT with my BB store card back in 2014. The card is a revolver but is listed as a "charge card" in MyFico. Best I can tell the card is evaluated as a revolver and should be looked at as such on an individual basis but?

Potential test criteria:

1) above 90% UT => in the range of 86% to 88.5%

2) 86% to 88.5% => in the range of 76% to 78.5%

3) 76% to 78.5% => in the range of 66% to 68.5%

4) 66% to 68.5% => in the range of 46% to 48.5%

5) 46% to 48.5% => in the range of 26% to 28.5%

6) 26% to 28.5% => in the range of 6% to 8.5%

Note: For this test, the subject card needs to have the highest reported UT% in all cases and aggregate utilization should be held in the 1% to 6% range. Additionally, it would be best to maintain the # cards reporting balances as a constant. Ideal but not necessarily critical is to have the same "non test" cards reporting small balances at low single digit UT (say 1% to 5%) throughout.