FICO 9 ignoring revolving lines above $30k limits?

[BrutalBodyShots]

We've heard about the "older" models (pre FICO 8, most notably 2/4/5) that "ignore" high limit revolvers at some point above $30k. As a result, we see the advice when implementing AZEO to use a card with a limit lower than that. It seems I've stumbled upon a data point showing that FICO 9 also ignores revolvers above $30k. I'd like to share this with everyone to see if there's something I'm overlooking. I'd definitely like your take, @Thomas_Thumb when you see this thread.

So I pulled all 40 of my FICO scores on 3-31-26, the last day on a New Revolver scorecard. I then pulled them again today for the first time on a No New Revovler scorecard. Almost all of my 40 scores increased, which was of course to be expected. One of the few that did not though was TU9, which actually dropped. Aside from aging metrics changing on the 1st of April and scorecard reassignment taking place, here's what happened with my balances:

On the 3-31-26 pull, I had 2 of 9 cards with non-zero balances reported. One had a balance of ~$180 against a $30k limit, the other a balance of ~$5300 against a $32k limit. My goal was for that $180 balance to report $0 by the time of the pull, but no such luck.. so I ended with AZE2. It is what it is. 

That $180 balance reported $0 a few days later (after scorecard reassignment). My ~$5300 reported balance dropped to ~$360, as I wanted to eliminate the penalty I know exists for raw dollars of debt with two threshold points around $2k and $5k. This was a true AZEO and optimized, meaning my 40 FICO scores should have been in their best states.

Because my TU FICO 9 score actually dropped, I can only conclude that I incurred the "All Zero" penalty due to the $32k limit being "ignored" by the algorithm, where the $30k limit wasn't being ignored from the first pull. My scores are too high to see any FICO negative reason codes unfortunately, so all I can do is speculate. Can anyone think of an explanation other than this? If not, I suppose we can add FICO 9 to the list with 2/4/5 that ignores revolvers above a certain limit from utilization?

[Patient957]

Can't you test the theory by switching your AZE1 card to different card with a sub-30K limit to see if you get the points back?  If you get the points back, that would strongly support your theory.  If not, that would refute it.

[BrutalBodyShots]

That would help verify for sure. Unfortunately, I only have 1 card with a limit low enough and at this point I'm already going to be heading back to NZ / 100% AWB.

I'm open to hearing any other possible explanations outside of the AZ penalty here though.

[Thomas_Thumb]

@BrutalBodyShots 

What are your reason code statements listed under EQ Auto score 5? You should have a couple listed since that real world max score is more than 50 points below model max.

Also, assuming you pulled scores again at AZE1, what are your 3B industry option scores for all Fico versions (8/9/10)? Did TU 9 scores drop while while TU 8 scores increased for both Auto and Bankcard? What about TU 10?

[Varsity_Lu]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

 So I pulled all 40 of my FICO scores on 3-31-26...

---

You are doing great work, but you lost me right here.

[BrutalBodyShots]

I don't follow you, @Varsity_Lu?

[BrutalBodyShots]

@Thomas_Thumb, my negative codes for EQ Auto 5 are "New account" and "Accounts with balances" with a score of 834. Out of curiosity, is that score the one from MF that will always have negative reason codes provided because of the 50+ point variance from the top score, or are there others? What is the top score for EQ A5?

Scores for BCE8 are EQ 893 (up 1 point from my previous belief that 892 was max possible!), TU 895 and EX 900.

Scores for Auto 8 are EQ 884, TU 886, EX8 877

Scores for BCE9 are EQ 874, TU 860 and EX 860

Scores for Auto 9 are EQ 887, TU 867, EX 868

Scores for BCE10 are EQ 867, TU 866, EX 866

Scores for Auto 10 are EQ 881, TU 893, EX 883

All BCE8 scores are up 20-30 points (expected)

All Auto 8 scores are up 15-20 points (expected)

BCE9 scores, EQ down 10 points, TU up 3 points, EX down 5 points.

Auto 9 scores, EQ down 13 points, TU down 7 points, EX up 4 points.

BCE10 scores, EQ down 2 points, TU up 1 point, EX up 14 points.

Auto 10 scores, EQ down 1 point, TU down 1 point, EX down 14 points.

It just struck me as odd that any of these scores would be lower on a No New Revolver scorecard relative to New Revolver, especially with AWB% dropping slightly and raw dollars coming down 2 threshold points. The AZ penalty could explain it for some of the scores I'm sure, although I didn't think it would have mattered beyond 2/4/5 (from 8+ anyway). 

Outside of the AZ penalty being in place due to the AZEO card being "ignored" what else do you believe may have been a variable or worth looking into? 

[Varsity_Lu]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

I don't follow you, @Varsity_Lu?

---

Most of us are just happy to get our 3B FICO 8 scores for free.  I had no idea there were FOURTY versions!  Holy mackerel!  I wouldn't even know where to begin with all that data.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Per my table (message 107) in the many flavors of Fico thread; max possible score for EQ Auto score 5 is 843. My EQ BCE score 5 tracks closely with Auto so it likely has a limit at a similar level. However, I never came across an official document that referenced  its limit.

Btw - what was your corresponding EQ BCE score 5?

 I don't see a consistent pattern with your score changes which offer conclusive evidence on cause(s) of movement. I'd rather not speculate at this time.

[BrutalBodyShots]

---

Btw - what was your corresponding EQ BCE score 5?

---

@Thomas_Thumb 

Good info on the scoring max for EQ A5, thanks. Are there any other scores that are known of that cap out 50+ points below their published ceilings / that you'd always get negative reason codes from through MF? I was unaware of this one.

My EQ BCE 5 currently with No New Revolver is 832. Previously on 3-31-26 on the New Revolver scorecard it was 813.

Can you offer any ideas as to why any of my scores should have dropped based on any of the information provided? Maybe my thought of FICO 9 ignoring the card with a $32k limit is completely off, but it's the only thought I had. 

Over the years I've found BCE (particularly EQ BCE8 since I get it through Citi and track it constantly) to be more sensitive to AWB% and raw dollars in general. For example, moving from AZEO with no raw dollar penalties would land me in the 890s (893 max, as referenced) but with organically reported balances across all my cards (100% AWB) and high 4-figures or low 5-figures of balances (at least 2 raw dollar thresholds, maybe 3) the lowest I've seen my EQ BCE8 has been 848, with 850s pretty common and never going above 864. Anyway, that's a 45 point span from AWB%/revolving balances, which is far more than I've ever seen to any Classic score. To be expected I suppose, since you'd think the BCE version would scrutinize data more harshly related specifically to revolving balances.

I admittedly haven't looked into the impact of scorecard reassignment very thoroughly over the years on anything beyond the Classic scores, so maybe there are FICO versions that simply don't see the movement we have come to expect from that event?