@Anonymous wrote:
what i am discovering is that even fico has lied. we are told that scoring factors are all weighted as such.
35%: payment history
30%: amounts owed
15%: length of credit history
10%: new credit
10%: credit mix
if you place reason codes into the supposed weighting of the score factors they represent it looks like this
my 4 reason codes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 length of time accounts have been established (this should be reason #2 if length of history is 15%)
#2 lack of recent installment loan information (this should be reason #4 if credit mix is 10%)
#3 length of time revolving accounts have been established (this should be reason #3 if length of history is 15%)
#4 too many accounts with balances (should be reason #1 if amounts owed is 30%)
i found a website with a fico rep saying that the weighting of score factors changes based on everyones individual profile, and so the weighting everyone thinks is correct is really just an example.
the reason codes are probably also misleading. so the code for lack of recent installment loan, maybe it will go away if i add a retail store card and some other various accts not just a loan. if that code is only referring to a lack of credit mix.
You're misunderstanding how the scoring factors are weighted. Fico has not "lied" at all. The percentages that go into each slice of the Fico pie are what they are, as you listed at the top of your post. How much they may be adversely impacting a specific score on any given file can vary relative to the other factors.
For example, someone may have no late payments or negative information on their file. As a result, they may have no negative reason statements related to that 35% sector of the Fico pie. That doesn't mean that sector isn't "worth" 35% still, it simply means that this person has that sector nailed down and that the other negative reason statements that they're seeing are more important (adversely impacting score). If this person also has their utilization in an ideal place and no amounts owed related reason statements are present, essentially 2/3 of their Fico score is taken care of so the negative reason statements provided across the rest of the 1/3 of the Fico pie will be for the less important factors.
Using your 4th (least important) reason statement as an example, "too many accounts with a balance" means that you're taking a penalty for having too large of a percentage of accounts with a [non-zero] balance. If I recall correctly from your original post, you have 2 accounts with a balance. If you were to move to 1, this statement could drop off. I too see it with 2 accounts with a balance on my file. Where you're going wrong in terms of your thinking is that you're equating this statement to 30% of your credit score, when that's not the case. The vast majority of that 30% is made up of your aggregate utilization (which for you I believe is ideal at 8%) then individual card utilization, etc. Number of accounts with a balance is an incredibly minor part of that 30% sector. Out of that 30%, perhaps aggregate utilization (revolving/installment) makes up (say) 22% of it, individual utilization (say) 5% and number of accounts with a balance (say) 3%, just to assign numbers to the discussion. Your negative reason statement for number of accounts with a balance could be impacting your score as little as 3-5 points.
