@SouthJamaica wrote:
By "revolving debt" do they mean reported balances, or balances carried?
I believe it is reported balances.
Most credit card companies that were reporting payments stopped reporting them mid 2015. Other CC companies never reported payments to begin with. Thus, credit scoring models, including Fico 09, really can't effectively distinguish between revolvers (carrying a balance) and transactors (reporting a balance that is subsequently PIF).
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:Hopefully you're not in danger of being assigned to the dreaded 13th Fico 09 scorecard. You don't have high revolving debt but sometimes these statements are rather vague. Perhaps new credit applications and high installment balance to loan are also considered in lucky 13. I suspect not but felt it was worth mentioning.
Hah I am Mr. Yuppie Foodstamp reporter.
Seems like a stretch honestly for two reasons: 1) most people on this forum have more recent credit than I do and haven't seen the disparity, and 2) that should absolutely be the same on both files.
Scorecard assignment has got to be darned near set in stone across the bureaus on any model ever unlike some of the other weightings they've tweaked internally. Installment loans can't really be tracked like that because that's a DTI calculation involving income whereas CC use indicates discretionary spending... even from a financial assessment perspective I can't see FICO having done this, it'd be sort of absurd. At some point the lenders still have to play a role and the DTI calculation is there not in the algorithm.
And my mortgage balance is <250K with a reported payment of $1818/mo, that's not unreasonable by consumer standards. I'm not an outlier in the datasets there... and I can't see a high installment utilization being the cause of this as that would effect EQ as well: by definition we're talking difference in files, or difference in algorithm (massive, well beyond even prior model design goals that FICO has stated) on an algorithm which they were awfully proud of suggesting it was far more consistent on the same data across the bureaus.
From one of the 3rd party sites that has a nice summary which shouldn't be screaming risk of BK presumably:
| Total Revolving Balances | $20 |
| Total Account Balances | $250,009 |
| Total Minimum Payments | $181 |
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:Somewhat interestingly, VS doesn't have this exclusion period, got up and spanked on TU VS 3 for the inquiry (60 points), EQ VS 3 went down 5.
60 points for 1 inquiry on VS 3.0???
Wierd it now even says 75 drop currently looking at the interface now. Same time period too 4/28 to 5/3. Confirmation from Wallethub actually on a more concrete time period:
VS 3.0 (Ok the daily score is kinda neat when talking really analyzing credit scores).
5/3 morning: 739
5/4 morning: 664
EQ from CK only lost 5 points; actually I just had a credit.com refresh today, EX still high at 783 so it's only TU.
I think since we're speculating, that the pattern on TU under VS 3 is what is problematic: the 30 day late from October now in combination with the inquiry now to TT's point indicates risky behavior... or it's entirely possible that the TU bug bit me as well, hadn't seen that on my files previously.
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:Somewhat interestingly, VS doesn't have this exclusion period, got up and spanked on TU VS 3 for the inquiry (60 points), EQ VS 3 went down 5.
60 points for 1 inquiry on VS 3.0???
Wierd it now even says 75 drop currently looking at the interface now though CK might be in some funky state since it was trying to update apparently according to their interface. Same time period too 4/28 to 5/3.
Two changes: new inquiry, and the Chase card re-reported $0 (it had just reported a few days ago at $130 and I ninja paid that pre-mortgage refinance though I shouldn't have worried as two small balances is no change on my FICOs from one small balance). Still have the Sallie card at $20; the interesting bit was the much higher EQ VS 3.0 only lost 5 points (787->782) and then presumably gained one point for the updated balance. Also the EX inquiry landed before the last credit.com pull and didn't see a major shift there.
Actually I just had a credit.com refresh today, EX still 783 so it's only TU. Actually it's not a CK bug either, Wallethub also has the TU VS 3.0 score now of 664.
I think since we're speculating, that the pattern on TU is what is problematic: the 30 day late from October now in combination with the inquiry now to TT's point indicates risky behavior... or it's entirely possible that the TU bug bit me as well, hadn't seen that on my files previously. Curious though because EQ didn't see a drop of it's much higher which suggests the difference in file and that is the obvious difference between TU/EQ.
Have you tried checking your TU VS 3.0 score on any of the other TU VS sites such as SavvyMoney.com or CreditSesame.com.
There have been a lot of shenanigans on all of the TU FAKO sites the last couple of weeks. Is there any possibility a derogatory reappeared or changed on your TU report.
Wallethub is another TU VS site.
Creditsesame likewise confirms:
MY CREDIT SCORE IS
GOOD 
664
PROVIDED BY
Every one reports the same two deliquencies so that hasn't changed; recent October JCB issue, and the old BOFA 30/60 day from 2010. According to CK and Wallethub I only have one tax lien still: no collections, no multiple tax liens, so if it is a bug it's not showing up in the data. Also the dates and reporting status on the tax lien didn't change.
@oilcan12 wrote:Interesting Revelate.
On 3/2/16 you EX FICO 9 was 74 points lower than EQ FICO 9, and the difference was seemingly triggered by a HP.
Now your TU VS 3.0 dropped 75 points seemingly triggered by an inquiry.
It almost seems as if you were on the edge on a high risk scorecard and the inquiries pushed you over the edge. Obviously, this is pure speculation. I don't even know if there is a VS 3.0 high risk scorecard. I'm sure TT knows.
If it really is that easy the get pushed into the FICO 9 high risk scorecard, I suspect that a lot of people won't like FICO 9.
I truly doubt that the inquiries affect scorecard on the FICO algorithm; the VS speculation is wild and silly on my part which is why I labelled it speculation 
.
Continuing though with sloppy comparisons EX/EQ VS are similar and have been the entire time regardless of inquiry distribution, only TU VS 3 had this large shift but it could've been the bug though I'm not sure what it would've been in my case... if I get a wild shift back up to the original number then I think we can rule out my SWAG.
FICO-wise scorecard changes (rebucketing) typically produce singular distinct shifts, not multiple distinct shifts over time which appears to be occurring on FICO 9 on EX for me. The late is only on TU, suggesting higher risk there absolutely; however, FICO, different issue, different animal, and EX has zero knowledge of that. It is possible that a new inquiry is a bucketable event, and now I'm seeing shifts within the scorecard as it ages, and then whenever that becomes old I should go back to prior score value... that would still be a very concrete change in how FICO 9 handles inquiries. Whether it's bucketable or not, either way, it would produce similar effects making it sort of moot to try to term it correctly.
Which is part of the problem with this analysis in thread format anyway, too easy to conflate various different things.
The path forward will be to see what EQ does in a month when that inquiry becomes countable; based on the EX data my hypothesis is there will be a shift, though it might not be as large a one as there is the one month delay... wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to land at 730ish vis a vis the April EX FICO 9 number.
@Revelate wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:Hopefully you're not in danger of being assigned to the dreaded 13th Fico 09 scorecard. You don't have high revolving debt but sometimes these statements are rather vague. Perhaps new credit applications and high installment balance to loan are also considered in lucky 13. I suspect not but felt it was worth mentioning.
Hah I am Mr. Yuppie Foodstamp reporter.
Seems like a stretch honestly for two reasons: 1) most people on this forum have more recent credit than I do and haven't seen the disparity, and 2) that should absolutely be the same on both files.
And my mortgage balance is <250K with a reported payment of $1818/mo, that's not unreasonable by consumer standards.
From one of the 3rd party sites that has a nice summary which shouldn't be screaming risk of BK presumably:
Total Revolving Balances $20 Total Account Balances $250,009 Total Minimum Payments $181
What the heck does that mean? - never heard the term
Your mortgage is mainstream boring and, as I mentioned, your revolving CC balance/minimum payments represent low debt.
However, your mortgage is only a few months old and applying for a refi early on may be viewed negatively in scoring models. That, plus recent new CCs and a late might trigger a score lowering response. A new student loan added in the mix might further increase assigned credit risk.
It will be interesting to see how things play out.
Getting back on track regarding Fico 09 and inquiries - combined data continues to suggest an elevated short term impact for Fico 09 (90 days or possibly 5 months) and discounted or no impact with Fico 09 after that time frame. Clearly, inquiries in the 6 to 12 month timeframe carry more weight on Fico 08 relative to Fico 09 basd on other posted data.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:Hopefully you're not in danger of being assigned to the dreaded 13th Fico 09 scorecard. You don't have high revolving debt but sometimes these statements are rather vague. Perhaps new credit applications and high installment balance to loan are also considered in lucky 13. I suspect not but felt it was worth mentioning.
Hah I am Mr. Yuppie Foodstamp reporter.
Seems like a stretch honestly for two reasons: 1) most people on this forum have more recent credit than I do and haven't seen the disparity, and 2) that should absolutely be the same on both files.
And my mortgage balance is <250K with a reported payment of $1818/mo, that's not unreasonable by consumer standards.
From one of the 3rd party sites that has a nice summary which shouldn't be screaming risk of BK presumably:
Total Revolving Balances $20 Total Account Balances $250,009 Total Minimum Payments $181 What the heck does that mean? - never heard the term
Your mortgage is mainstream boring and, as I mentioned, your revolving CC balance/minimum payments represent low debt.
However, your mortgage is only a few months old and applying for a refi early on may be viewed negatively in scoring models. That, plus recent new CCs and a late might trigger a score lowering response. A new student loan added in the mix might further increase assigned credit risk.
It will be interesting to see how things play out.
Getting back on track regarding Fico 09 and inquiries - combined data continues to suggest an elevated short term impact for Fico 09 (90 days or possibly 5 months) and discounted or no impact with Fico 09 after that time frame. Clearly, inquiries in the 6 to 12 month timeframe carry more weight on Fico 08 relative to Fico 09 basd on other posted data.
Yuppie Foodstamp = $20 bill, so named from yuppies used to pulling out plenty of $20's from the ATM and using them copiously in restaurants late 80's early 90's.
FICO doesn't appear to make a distinction between different types of installment loans other than maybe Nextgen, but it's up for debate on FICO 9 potentially.
The initial datapoints were before the refinance inquiry, and there's no distinction on a Credco pull between purchase and refinance and as such that can't plausibly be used in the FICO algorithm since income is unknown and it's not like having multiple mortgages is unheard of. Also the student loan is just a theory at this point, wouldn't even apply for that for another 5ish months if then, and presumably FICO doesn't know I'm considering that... I know we're going into SWAG territory with some of the discussion here, but let's try to keep things in perspective .
Agreed on FICO 8 = FICO 04 = an inquiry is an inquiry and remains as such for the entire year it's on there. Also agreed that my data appears to suggest that inquiries in the first 3 or possibly 6 months (where's the 5 estimate from?) but we should get close to confirming that in another 29ish days when the mortgage coded inquiry counts against me.