@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@oilcan12 wrote:Actually, I had a 3.5 month old Penfed HP on EQ at the time. Also, SouthJamaica says that he has 2 to 4 HPs less than 3 months old on each Bureau and his FICO 9 scores range from 50 to 73 points higher than FICO 8. I don't think that the treatment of the inqiries is the main reason for his dramatically higher FICO 9 scores, but he doesn't seem to be taking a hard hit for having multiple HPs under 3 months old.
SJ didn't specify exactly how old these inquiries were. If SJ wants to provide more precise dates on his HPs, those would be valuable data points.
Thanks for the clarification. Your data is clean and does a good job isolating a single factor, inquiries. Thus, the conclusion inquiries count less on Fico 09 relative to Fico 08 (at least over 3 months age) is sound - IMO. Your balance to loan ratio is quite low. If a high B/L ratio is penalized less on Fico 09, that further points to reduced impact of inquiries as a likely reason for your higher F09 scores.
The rather large score difference reported by SJ is not fully explainable by inquiries counting less on F09. Isolating cause(s) of his difference requires more data - right now it's speculative. Can't recall if SJ now has a high B/L ratio (car loan).
No, car loan hasn't happened yet. Utilization is perfect on single installment loan.
Revelate ha a high B/L ratio with his mortgage. A difference in weighting of aged lates and/or derogatory records is a consideration as well
I understand that SJ reported having a couple inquiries less than 90 days age. Can't say that contradicts a 90 aging hypothesis
2, 2, and 4. Details in response to Relevate.To my mind it does.
Here I have FICO 9 scores bordering on 800, with a derogatory public record, and from 2 to 4 inquiries less than 90 days old. That certainly says to me that FICO 9 is more forgiving of recent inquiries, even inquiries within the last 90 days.
It says to me that inquiry impact and aging are less problematic to FICO 9. [Either that or FICO 9 is totally forgiving of a public record if it's going to fall off soon.... which I highly doubt is the case]
but it would be helpful to get data on potential score implications associated with monthly aging (isolating this factor is likely problematic).
SJ, thanks for the responses. So, only Revelate has the high B/L ratio for aggregate installment loan.
Data I have seen in the last couple months does not conflict with our February conclusions that:
1) Fico 09 weighs inquiries less than Fico 08.
2) Old delinquencies and derogatories are discounted more under Fico 09.
There were some other conclusions as well but best not to stray too far off topic here. However, I will say my own most recent data comparing March to February does not support my earlier hypothesis that Fico 09 weighs # cards reporting more heavily than does Fico 08.
Revelate's initial data does suggest a possible tapering of inquiry impact during an initial 90 day period. Your data suggests otherwise. We do know VantageScore 3.0 has a 90 day tapering [VS states as much] even if Fico 09 may not - or may assign a different weight (signal strength) to inquiries depending on scorecard.
Revelate's more recently reported 75 point drop lacks sufficient stability to chase down potential causes. I would be hard pressed to attribute it to a new inquiry. I'd suggest letting the dust settle for awhile and taking a fresh look at this issue down the road.
@oilcan12 wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
I'm not saying you're flat out utterly and absurdly wrong in your data or your analysis, just everything that we've ever found suggests your hypothesis isn't accurate.
I wasn't reporting a hypothesis. I was reporting a consistent result. I even posted a table of my before and after scores. That was just one instance.
As far as no one mentioning it before, I would suggest that not many people pay close attention.
I saw your table and it simply confirmed for my own data that there is no difference in bins between 0 and 1 inquiry which given how long I've remained inquiry free in my time here (>1 year twice) I have seen that previously.
That does not state it's been buffered or not counted at all; inquiry count is a step function not linear, i.e. something like 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, 9+ and there's no change when within one of those ranges. That is demonstrated by legions of testers in the past.
I'm simply not cognizant of how it follows that it's buffered for a month as a result.
Your table does suggest that still holds true on FICO 9, and that my short term inquiry hypothesis isn't 100% accurate, but it may be a confluence of factors on my file... or maybe the EX algorithm states I am higher risk as TT has suggested for some unknown factor whereas EQ seemingly discounts it /shrug.
Oilcan12 -
I can't speak for other profiles but I can speak for my own. I took a HP for a CLI on EQ 6/2014 but never saw a change in Fico 08 score.
I don't monitor Fico 04 score but do pull 3B reports periodically. [EQ/TU/EX Fico 08 scores at 850 on all 3B reports and TU, EX Fico 08 at 850 all months as reported by Discover and AMEX]
- On 3/2015 my EQ Fico 04 score was 796 (3 cards reporting - no AMEX).
- On 7/2015 after the INQ passed 12 months my EQ Fico 04 score increased to 809 (4 cards reporting - again no AMEX).
- On 11/2015 score was still at 809 ( 3 cards reporting, no AMEX).
- On 2/2016 EQ Fico 04 score dropped to 764 (6 of 6 cards reporting including AMEX).
- On 3/2016 EQ Fico 04 back to 809 (3 cards reporting, no AMEX).
So, for I'm fairly confident in stating:
1) Going from 0 => 1 => 0 HP does not impact EQ Classic Fico 08 score given my scorecard
2) Going from 1 => 0 HP does impact EQ Classic Fico 04 score given my scorecard
3) A review of monthly EQ Fico 08 Bankcard scores from Citi does indicate a likely score impact 0 => 1 => 0.
Note the score drop in months showing an inquiry.
Also worth noting is the higher 886 score with 2 cards reporting compared to 882 with 3, 4 or 5 cards reporting.
Refer totable below
Here is a slide from a Fico presentation referring to buffers:
Note: Inverse reported different results when his tax liens were withdrawn resulting in clean files with no lates. Two of his CRAs (EQ & TU) listed 2 HPs and the 3rd CRA (EX) showed 0 inquiries. Here is what he reported:
1) Lien came off EX report with 0 inquiries => Fico 08 score jumped to 850
2) Lien came off TU report with 2 inquiries => Fico 08 score jumped to 840
3) Lien came off EQ report with 2 inquiries => Fico 08 score jumped to 840.
4) Dropped from 2 HPs on TU to 1 HP and Fico 08 score increased to 845
Inverse wrote:
Transunion deleted last lien in just over 24 hours. Still waiting on EQ. EX deleted previoulsy.
I highlighted the mortgage score so you could see the "factors"
I have 0 inquiries on EX and 2 on TU, 2 on EQ, so I suspect EQ will mirror TU
It appears those two inquiries may be worth 10 points on FICO 8 and are certainly affecting my FICO 4 more.
Installment utilization is:
just under 80% on the auto loan
2 mortgages, 2 properties
1 at 40%
1 just under 90%
mortage installment "utilization" under 64%
overall installment "utilization" just over 65%
8+ years AAoA with 18++ years oldest account but not enough history.
FICO 4 is BRUTAL!!!
Inverse wrote:
Inquiry dropped off TU scoring yesterday.
Did the $1 CCT join just to check my TU FICO 8, didn't want to pay for a 1B pull here.
Going from 2 -> 1 inquiry on TU netted me 5 points.
I'll get the mortgage answers shortly when I start the refi process.
P.S. Inverse data shows a Fico 08 at 850 can be achieved with overall installment balance to loan ratio of 65%. Clearly, a "pretty" ratio for installment loans [at least when a mortgage is in play] is not required to reach 850.
However, B/L ratio may still need to be under the upper threshold - which I peg at 70% based on CAPTOOL data.
EQ FICO 9 with a new inquiry isn't anywhere close to my EX score so something else is wonky.
Theory debunked, main post updated, transition from 3->4 scoreable inquiries FICO 9, very clean data (identical balances on tradelines short time period not crossing a month boundary so aging should be non-factor)
| Score | 6/1/15 | 6/4/15 | Change |
| EQ FICO 9 | 786 | 775 | -11 |
| EQ FICO 9 AU | 789 | 779 | -10 |
| EQ FICO 9 BC | 777 | 767 | -10 |