@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I did some research and like TT said above it is a totally separate scorecard.
@Thomas_Thumbwhen I listened to an interview by Tom Quinn about segmentation I noticed the first step after clean or dirty was thin/thick and then young/aged.
I also noticed in your above graph that for a thick aged scorecard you don’t have it divided into new accounts and no new accounts, rather it’s the presence or absence of an aged minor derogatory. Why? I thought those were modifiers inside scorecards and we know there are different scorecards when a thick aged profile acquires a new account. Please explain. Thanks.That's interesting to know. Perhaps I should change my split order. I've looked at scorecard segmentation differently over time. The above is the only illustration I had put together with Fico 9. It is from a few years back and needs updating to address inaccuracies as you point out. I'll put that on my to do list.
Below is a more recent illustration that looked specifically at Fico 8 clean scorecards more current segmentation scheme. The thin/non thin criteria is a speculative approximation as is the AoOA of 10 years.
@Thomas_Thumb BTW, thank you, I've been looking for that chart as well. It would be great if you could update the order of segmentation and then I would love to add it to the scoring primer, along with your chart about number of accounts with a balance versus score.
@Anonymous wrote:@SouthJamaica The answer is complex SJ. It really totally depends on your profile whether you will see an increase or a decrease, but as you so astutely figured out, it was a scorecard change. And you realized it because of the drop in score which is sometimes a clue.
The scores are different in different scorecards because the scoring factors have different signal strengths. That's the easiest answer/explanation.
Apparently your profile looked pretty good even with high utilization and therefore based on the scoring factors it gave you a better score. Be happy, that means it likes your profile and finds it low risk, even at high utilization.
That doesn't mean it has to be that way. If your profile were different, maybe had multiple high revolvers or whatever else it doesn't like, then your score may have been lower and you may have saw an increase instead upon being reassigned.
Remember, you only had 1 card with high utilization, so that was pretty low risk for a "high utilization" scorecard. Imagine if 50% or 70% of your cards had high utilization?
So, Kudos to you for discovering the reassignment because of the score drop and reason codes and for discovering it could be based upon 1 card!
OK thanks.
So I guess I appear to be slower now because I'm running with a faster crowd.
Due to multiple reports of suprising results from the NFCU July 3rd update of EQ FICO 9, including my own completely illogical report, which had
(a) my FICO 9 going down rather than up despite nothing but positive events
(b) my FICO 9 going to 10 points lower than my FICO 8 even though it's historically 20 or more points higher
I have been suspecting that my report of the score dropping from 727 to 715 may have been bogus.
I now have reason to believe that my EQ FICO 9 was 745 as of yesterday, not 715, despite the absence of any significant event between July 3rd and yesterday.
I will confirm when I pull my 3-Bureau report any day now.
(My working theory is that they pulled data not from July 3rd but from a month before, as 715 was my actual true EQ FICO 9 score on June 6th; if you would like to test this and have access to a MyFICO report from around a month earlier than July 3rd, check it out)
Update 8/7/20 I eventually learned that it wasn't month old data, but data from the 4th Tuesday of the preceding month. I.e., July 3rd update should have been dated June 30th and August 5th update should have been dated July 28th.
@lhcole77 wrote:@SouthJamaica So I have an update! No cards reporting > 68.9%.
+12 on FICO 8 and -10 on FICO 9.
The mystery as to the NFCU EQ FICO 9 update was solved. NFCU does its soft pull on the 4th Tuesday of the preceding month. So the "July 3rd" update was really an update as of June 30th. Similarly this month's "August 5th" update is really based on July 28th data.
@lhcole77 wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:The mystery as to the NFCU EQ FICO 9 update was solved. NFCU does its soft pull on the 4th Tuesday of the preceding month. So the "July 3rd" update was really an update as of June 30th. Similarly this month's "August 5th" update is really based on July 28th data.
Does this mean the "other scorecard" on FICO 9 is no longer something in play?
Well, it exists... a 13th scorecard especially designed for high utilization.
But it was not a factor in my case. In my case FICO 9 went up, just the way one would have thought it would, when my revolving utilization came down.
Now, who gets to be on that 13th "high utilization" scorecard, and what the effect is of being on it, are still unknowns.
@SouthJamaica wrote:Well, it exists... a 13th scorecard especially designed for high utilization.
But it was not a factor in my case. In my case FICO 9 went up, just the way one would have thought it would, when my revolving utilization came down.
Now, who gets to be on that 13th "high utilization" scorecard, and what the effect is of being on it, are still unknowns.
I get my FICO 9 updates from credit.com in a week. I am going to see how they compare.
Thanks for updating me on the status of your former dilemma 