We've theorized on some industry options and how they weight things differently, but this beauty is from EQ FICO 8 Auto Enhanced (AU):
You have no recent activity from an auto loan.
This was from my January 1 pull which I just hadn't noticed previously; interesting enoughly in my zero balances test there's an identical reason code for revolving utilization, but it's a likely confirmation that all installment loans may not be created equally, at least on industry options.
Was in #4 slot so not hugely major, but considering it's on a file with both lates and a tax lien, it's more relevant than some reason codes. Somewhat interestingly it's not on FICO 9 AU, there my mortgage or non-mortgage loans are too high apparently kicks it out of the top 4, and FICO 5 AU complains about a CFA.
ETA: It is on TU FICO 04 AU, it is not on TU FICO 8/9 AU. Was nowhere on Experian.
I have seen that reason statement on Auto EX Fico 98 when I tested 100% B/HB on my AMEX charge card which dropped my EX 98 scores. That condition was present on both July and August pulls. Interestingly, in August, AMEX was the only card reporting a balance - and I had "no recent balances on your revolving accounts".
I believe the card is looked at individually for utilization B/HB (top reason statement) but does not count toward # revolving credit accounts (bottom reason statement). See below.
According to the MyFico simulator I can get a new $50 k auto loan and my Classic Fico 8 score won't go down. Based on the above, my Auto scores should go up. Interestingly, the VS 3 simulator shows my score increasing with a new, open, auto loan. I guess the new account and a high B/L ratio won't hurt my profile but the added account/account type would help. I believe these predictions would prove accurate. The older Classic, non Auto enhanced, Fico algorithms would likely look favorably on an open Auto loan as well - IMO.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:I have seen that reason statement on Auto EX Fico 98 when I tested 100% B/HB on my AMEX charge card which dropped my EX 98 scores. Interestingly, in August AMEX was the only card reporting a balance - see reason #4 no recent balances on your revolving accounts. I believe the card is looked at individually for utilization B/HB but does not count toward # revolving credit accounts. See below.
Good to know, thanks! I hadn't seen this in the published reason codes for FICO 04, though I know you've looked at them too and the fact it's on my TU 04 suggests it may be there in some form or fashion on all of them.
Not sure what to make of the blanket "balances on mortgage or non-mortgage loans are too high" reason code that is clearly around too in addition to this one. Credit mix vs. installment utilization perhaps being explicitly two different categories as this forum has sort of gone back and forth on, and perhaps different types of loans factoring into credit mix though least the assumption was on FICO 04 at least that credit mix was all accounts open or closed.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Revelate wrote:We've theorized on some industry options and how they weight things differently, but this beauty is from EQ FICO 8 Auto Enhanced (AU):
You have no recent activity from an auto loan.
This was from my January 1 pull which I just hadn't noticed previously; interesting enoughly in my zero balances test there's an identical reason code for revolving utilization, but to my knowledge this is the first confirmation that all installment loans may not be created equally, at least on industry options.
Was in #4 slot so not hugely major, but considering it's on a file with both lates and a tax lien, it's more relevant than some reason codes. Somewhat interestingly it's not on FICO 9 AU, there my mortgage or non-mortgage loans are too high apparently kicks it out of the top 4, and FICO 5 AU complains about a CFA.
ETA: It is on TU FICO 04 AU, it is not on TU FICO 8/9 AU. Was nowhere on Experian.
Interesting. I don't like the language used personally. I'm assuming you don't have a current open auto loan. The verbiage in my opinion should be almost exactly that, such as "no current open auto loan" if that's being factored into the score. "Activity" to me suggests more about usage or balance change. Like "no recent revolving credit use" doesn't mean someone doesn't have an open credit card, just that they didn't report a balance. No activity with an auto loan to me suggests perhaps that the balance isn't changing. Take my auto loan for example. My monthly payment is $250 but I always pay $400. As a result, my loan is paid through January 2018 now so my monthly payment is always $0. So, if I want to skip a month I can... which to me would mean "no recent activity from an auto loan" that month if nothing changes with respect to the balance. I don't know, I just find that reason code a bit misleading in the way it's presented.
I think it depends how it's being measured which we really don't know, and I would argue language is just semantics anyway... shorter reason codes were the name of the game back in the day when infrastructure had a higher cost FWIW.
I never saw that before when I had an auto loan and I floated my balances well out, presumably any non-zero auto-loan balance that's updated within the last six months qualifies would be my blase assumption. Unfortunately the fact I never saw it before with my heinously unsexy file (PR + deliquency + shortish history) doesn't mean much, I almost assuredly had too many other problems to worry about on my file.
Maybe at some point when you get closer to paid off where the interest is pretty irrelevant, and on your much cleaner file which has a higher chance of getting this reason code, play with it?