EX goes up for 2 -> 0 accounts reporting

[Anonymous]

I saw in several contributions that it is not good to have all accounts reporting $0 balance. Well, I made (accidentally) the test. I went from 1% util. in 2 accounts to zero/$zero. And my EX went up by 11 points. My EQ went up 1 point, while 1 account was still reporting 1% that day. Any thoughts?

Message Edited by Physicist on 09-04-2008 02:56 PM

[haulingthescoreup]

Interesting! I have seen that in the 780's + bunch. Have you checked TU yet? They're often the most squirrelly.

And there is also the possibility that one and only one account would have been ever better. Something like start with 2 accounts, move to just one for +15, move to zero for -4, for net +11.

And you also have to look for other things in the background, like an account had a birthday, or a negative aged another year. One of the real challenges in trying to crack the scoring formula is that it's nearly impossible to isolate the variables. And then when you compare one person's experience to another, who might be in different score buckets, you then get to consider an unknown variable in addition to the known ones that you already have!

Welcome to score junkie land.

[smallfry]

I have heard from quite a few people with clean reports and high scores that they do not get penalized for letting no revolving lines report a balance. I need to let 2 report because FICO can't tell the difference between one reporting and zero reporting. Do not get me started.

[Anonymous]

---

haulingthescoreup wrote: Interesting! I have seen that in the 780's + bunch. Have you checked TU yet? They're often the most squirrelly. And there is also the possibility that one and only one account would have been ever better. Something like start with 2 accounts, move to just one for +15, move to zero for -4, for net +11. And you also have to look for other things in the background, like an account had a birthday, or a negative aged another year. One of the real challenges in trying to crack the scoring formula is that it's nearly impossible to isolate the variables. And then when you compare one person's experience to another, who might be in different score buckets, you then get to consider an unknown variable in addition to the known ones that you already have! Welcome to score junkie land.

---

Yes, could be that 1 account reporting was even better. But to me it was interesting to see that my case is different than others here. By the way, my record is clean, only my average age is very low (less than 2 years).

Message Edited by Physicist on 09-04-2008 09:22 PM

[haulingthescoreup]

Now, that's even more surprising! The usual thinking is that the formula rewards balances for those with short history, because it helps build up a track record. More and more interesting as it goes.

What's your longest displayed history?

[Anonymous]

Oldest account is 2y7m (average 1y7m).

[Anonymous]

I'd like to be able to be able to report $0 on all accounts. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

So, let me give you an update: EQ gave me +2 when I went from 1 to 0 acc w bal BUT TU -21 ! EX -5 This is a very nice test though. One CCC will report Monday, thus I'll be back to 1 awb then. I hope TU and EX jump back. Those were the only ones that gave me the "no recent bal on your revol credit acc" flag. I didn't get this warning from EQ. I'll keep you in the loop.

[Anonymous]

I ran the FICO simulations. Obviously, they do not take the "zero-account" penalty into consideration. When I set the balance to $0 (that means no balance on any account), I see a stable FICO (was 728, simulation 728-748).

[Lel]

A few months back I also paid all my credit cards before the statement closing date, and thus had all of them report zero balances. I didn't see any effect on my scores. The difference in my situation is that I have a consolidated student loan and two mortgages, so balances were reported on 3 accounts.