FICO 2 +6, FICO 8 -4

[SouthJamaica]

Bizarrely, when I added a revolving account balance which brought my aggregate revolving utilization up from rounded 5% to rounded 6%, and increased number of accounts with balances from 9/34 to 10/34, my EX FICO 2 went up 6 points instead of down.

My FICO 8, predictably, dropped 4 points.

Scratching my head to figure out the reason for this oddity.

Negative reason code "not using revolving credit" had dropped out, but that doesn't explain this for me.

Update 8:58 a.m.

I was able to immediately eliminate any aging factors, since the change was mid-month.

So my only remaining suspect was the aging off of scoreable inquiries. But I just pored over the inquiries and there were no February 2018 inquiries.

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

Negative reason code "not using revolving credit" had dropped out, but that doesn't explain this for me.

---

I'm confused as to how the "not using revolving credit" reason code could be present if you were already at 9 accounts with balances reported? 

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

Negative reason code "not using revolving credit" had dropped out, but that doesn't explain this for me.

---

I'm confused as to how the "not using revolving credit" reason code could be present if you were already at 9 accounts with balances reported? 

---

Me too. But there it was. It was only showing in FICO 2. I posted about that the other day, how the negative reason code "high credit usage" had flipped to "not using revolving credit" when I went from rounded 8% to rounded 6%

[Anonymous]

Does 7% eliminate both reason codes? 

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there.  A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Does 7% eliminate both reason codes? 

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there.  A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

---

Tradelines can be discounted, vis a vis my 43500 CSR with balance also leads to no revolving, and as soon as I have any other revolver report I'm likely going to get the points I lost back.

SJ: when you post these specifically for FICO 8 could you also break out revolvers with balances vs. open installment loans?  Agreed that FICO 2 is on number of accounts, but I'm not so sure on that one with FICO 8.

Also what all those accounts actually are?  That no-revolving usage is suspect but depends on the details of the file.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure SJ will weigh in with the specifics regarding his accounts with balances, but if I recall correctly the majority if not all of them are revolvers and I'd find it extremely hard to believe (next to impossible) that all of them were being "ignored" by the algorithm for reasons like AU accounts, extremely high credit limits, etc.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Does 7% eliminate both reason codes? 

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there.  A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

---

1. So you think 7% might be that elusive middle ground I'm looking for?

2. I also take issue with "no revolving credit use". I would even take issue with "minimal"; I don't think 30k is minimal

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Does 7% eliminate both reason codes? 

I take issue with "no revolving credit use" when it is in fact there.  A hypothetical reason code that says "minimal revolving credit use" could make sense here, but "no" is pretty cut and dry and you're definitely not there.

---

Tradelines can be discounted, vis a vis my 43500 CSR with balance also leads to no revolving, and as soon as I have any other revolver report I'm likely going to get the points I lost back.

SJ: when you post these specifically for FICO 8 could you also break out revolvers with balances vs. open installment loans?  Agreed that FICO 2 is on number of accounts, but I'm not so sure on that one with FICO 8.

Also what all those accounts actually are?  That no-revolving usage is suspect but depends on the details of the file.

---

I do actually have a 43,500 credit line; but EX counted it in number of accounts and included the balance I had on it.

All of my open accounts are revolving accounts except for my little reindeer games SSL.

Of the 9 revolving accounts reporting, 2 are PLOC's, 7 are credit cards.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure SJ will weigh in with the specifics regarding his accounts with balances, but if I recall correctly the majority if not all of them are revolvers and I'd find it extremely hard to believe (next to impossible) that all of them were being "ignored" by the algorithm for reasons like AU accounts, extremely high credit limits, etc.

---

Yeah. In my dreams would someone make me an authorized user.

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

Of the 9 revolving accounts reporting, 2 are PLOC's, 7 are credit cards.

---

And of the credit cards that have been reporting a positive balance during the last several months, there has always been at least one with a fairly low credit limit, and which was a card in your name, and which was a true credit card (not a charge card), etc.  Correct?