cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EQ FICO 8 irregularity

Auto Loans for ANY Credit Situation. Immediate Response.
Advertiser disclosure
Valued Contributor

EQ FICO 8 irregularity

While testing EQ5, I noticed the irregularity. When going from 2/15 CCs reporting to 3/15 CCs reporting I took a four point penalty. Weird. I don’t understand why my EQ FICO 8 dropped. Combined balances are very minimal less than 1%. Ideas anyone? I thought the line was at 33%?

Went from 3/16 to 4/16 accounts. Ideas???







Installment loan reported this month,so technically, I'm at 2 months, but AoYA points were NOT reset. When new CCs hit and it is reset, I'll put the number it is.+1,+2,+2(Forgive typos, mobile.)(Everything said is Just IMHO.)
Scores updated AUG 4, '19. Since then, 5 HP dings to add; will update again.
Message 1 of 21
20 REPLIES 20
Super Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

Do you have access to the reason statements (in order) from the 3/16 verses 4/16 pulls?

Message 2 of 21
Valued Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity


@Birdman7 wrote:
While testing EQ5, I noticed the irregularity. When going from 2/15 CCs reporting to 3/15 CCs reporting I took a four point penalty. Weird. I don’t understand why my EQ FICO 8 dropped. Combined balances are very minimal less than 1%. Ideas anyone? I thought the line was at 33%?

Went from 3/16 to 4/16 accounts. Ideas???

I doubt that even careful study of the credit reports would reveal what caused a 4 point drop.

TU fico08=823 09/28/19
EX fico08=813 10/16/19
EQ fico08=823 10/04/19
EX fico09=810 10/02/19
EQ fico bankcard08=844 09/24/19
Message 3 of 21
Valued Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

OP....That is a lot of data, but I am having a little trouble deciphering it. It looks like some is score/maximum...but then you have some that says EQ5  785/818   TU4  807/839. Is the second number the highest ever achieved? Also you said when going from 2/15 to 3/15  you took a 4 point penalty.  But then further down you said went from 3/16 to 4/16 which is confusing me. If you went from 15 cc accounts to 16 cc accounts, did you not add an inquiry and account...this post is just confusing me a lot. Can you clarify some of this?

TU fico08=823 09/28/19
EX fico08=813 10/16/19
EQ fico08=823 10/04/19
EX fico09=810 10/02/19
EQ fico bankcard08=844 09/24/19
Message 4 of 21
Valued Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

OP...One other thing...the 33% comes from azeo with 1 card out of 3 reporting. I am not sure it equates the same when you have a lot of cards. Some here have 100 cards, but I dont think they could have reported balance on 33 of them without a great deal of score drop. It may be 33% if you have only 3 cards, but might be 25% if you have 16, and 20% if you have 30..etc. I would suppose there is a point when the model just  considers it too many cards reporting if you have a lot of cards. Since the scoring model alogorithm is a trade secret, we can only try to determine break points based on our and others data in these threads. We have enough data to determine azeo for someone with 3 cards, but I am not at all sure that we have enough data points to determine 5 out of 15 cards reporting would also maximize the utilization points. It may, but there is not so many with high numbers of cards that have tested that to arrive at that conclusion, as far as I know. Last time I tried to get that much data on anything it was to try and figure out women...it did not work out too well. If it had I would have written a great book, but in that personal study some data points proved to defy logical explanations...well actually most of the data points did.

TU fico08=823 09/28/19
EX fico08=813 10/16/19
EQ fico08=823 10/04/19
EX fico09=810 10/02/19
EQ fico bankcard08=844 09/24/19
Message 5 of 21
Established Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

Was 1 of the CCs reported a card you had not used in awhile (inactive to active)?

Message 6 of 21
Valued Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

That’s the strange thing BBS, the reason codes did not change.

Sarge, The first number is my score; The second number is the maximum its there for newbies benefit/convenience. 15 CCs 16 ACCOUNTS. Three credit cards reporting one loan reporting.

Btw, The reason they recommend three cards for AZEO is because the line is supposed to be at 33% for EQ FICO 08, so therefore it takes three cards in order to optimize and prevent the penalty for too many cards with a balance.

With that said, your point is well taken. Different scorecards may have different breakpoints. I am in fact on a thick scorecard. And I’ll tell you something else, it would seem logical to me that someone with a new account would have an elevated risk and apparently FI thinks so too because they devote scorecards to people with new accounts. So it would make sense to add a couple additional breakpoints for the new accounts scorecard. And right now I am in a new account scorecard because my AoYA is less than 12 months. Coincidentally CassieCard just found a 4% breakpoint on a new account scorecard:

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/EX-has-a-4-aggregate-utilization-thresho...

DollyLama actually it has been a little while since one of the cards posted a balance but that’s only because I PIF so it hasn’t been dormant.







Installment loan reported this month,so technically, I'm at 2 months, but AoYA points were NOT reset. When new CCs hit and it is reset, I'll put the number it is.+1,+2,+2(Forgive typos, mobile.)(Everything said is Just IMHO.)
Scores updated AUG 4, '19. Since then, 5 HP dings to add; will update again.
Message 7 of 21
Valued Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

@Birdman7.....so EQ5 has an 818 maximum, and TU4 has an 839 maximum...why such weird maximums rather than 850, or 900? I have never heard that before. I thought almost every scoring model had either 850 or 900 as the maximum, but I admittedly have never really focused on the lesser used scores either.

TU fico08=823 09/28/19
EX fico08=813 10/16/19
EQ fico08=823 10/04/19
EX fico09=810 10/02/19
EQ fico bankcard08=844 09/24/19
Message 8 of 21
Moderator Emeritus

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity


@sarge12 wrote:

@Birdman7.....so EQ5 has an 818 maximum, and TU4 has an 839 maximum...why such weird maximums rather than 850, or 900? I have never heard that before. I thought almost every scoring model had either 850 or 900 as the maximum, but I admittedly have never really focused on the lesser used scores either.


I heard it explained to me once upon a time from someone who was (allegedly) working on some of the very early algorithms that some of the top scoring items were mutually exclusive.  I don't put a lot of credence on this but it's worthy of rumor mentioning at least.

 

The algorithms have a full score range of 850 for Classic scores or 900 for industry options; however, many of the scores prior to FICO 8 had a real world max of less than 850; we documented the ranges that we knew in Jello's old excellent post on FICO versions.  Not certain I'd call the mortgage trifecta lesser used to be fair, but in virtually every mortgage score disclosure they put the real world min / max for the given score, and it's not 850.

 

This was a complaint so in FICO 8/9 they extended it to the full listed range to remove the confusion.




        
Message 9 of 21
Valued Contributor

Re: EQ FICO 8 irregularity

I’m sure glad you answered that because I had no idea.







Installment loan reported this month,so technically, I'm at 2 months, but AoYA points were NOT reset. When new CCs hit and it is reset, I'll put the number it is.+1,+2,+2(Forgive typos, mobile.)(Everything said is Just IMHO.)
Scores updated AUG 4, '19. Since then, 5 HP dings to add; will update again.
Message 10 of 21
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.