The FICO God's can sure be very temperamental! I know every profile is different, however I received a SW alert this morning that my EQ score had gone up one point (717 to 718). It appears that it was because of a CC balance that went from about $83 to $0. Then about three hours later I get another SW Alert stating that my EQ score dropped one point (back down to 717) because of an account balance increase. It was a CC balance that went from $0 to a whopping $8.
Note to self, if a balance is reporting as $0, keep in there! 
I have been trying to have $0 balances (except on one card that I keep well under 10%) before statements cut, but in this case I goofed and let the $8 report.
@EW800 wrote:The FICO God's can sure be very temperamental! I know every profile is different, however I received a SW alert this morning that my EQ score had gone up one point (717 to 718). It appears that it was because of a CC balance that went from about $83 to $0. Then about three hours later I get another SW Alert stating that my EQ score dropped one point (back down to 717) because of an account balance increase. It was a CC balance that went from $0 to a whopping $8.
Note to self, if a balance is reporting as $0, keep in there!
I had 0 utilization and eq decided to bring the hammer down on me. I lost like 27 points or so. I wasn't thrilled by that i am going to let my BCP report next week sometimes and see if i can gain some of those points back. The lesson i learned is au accounts don't count for utilization :-(
Understanding FICO Scoring is an oxymoron.
@fused wrote:Understanding FICO Scoring is an oxymoron.
Quoted for Truth!
That said, a positive change followed by a counterbalancing negative change, in a short period of time, should be identical absolute value and zero out which appears to have been the case here.
Where I start head-scratching is when it doesn't follow that pattern like in my own data. That's, well, irritating .
@Revelate wrote:
@fused wrote:Understanding FICO Scoring is an oxymoron.
Quoted for Truth!
That said, a positive change followed by a counterbalancing negative change, in a short period of time, should be identical absolute value and zero out which appears to have been the case here.
Where I start head-scratching is when it doesn't follow that pattern like in my own data. That's, well, irritating
With the earlier FICO scoring formulas that was certainly true. Now that we're working with FICO 08 scores, I'm reluctant to answer many questions on FICO scoring. I feel like I'm totally new to FICO scoring...AGAIN.
@Revelate wrote:Where I start head-scratching is when it doesn't follow that pattern like in my own data. That's, well, irritating
That is so true! I am half-surprised that I did not see a larger drop than gain.
In about a week, I will be putting about $700 on a Barclay Card to take advantage of the $0 intrest for two months or so, for some dental work for my wife. Although my total UTIL will still be under 2% or so, I am sure I will take a bit of a score hit for this charge. I plan to at least make sure that the balance is not more than $500 or so when the statement cuts so that the UTIL on this one card will be only about 7%, but I am sure I will take a temporary hit. 
Thankfully, I have learned through this forum that UTIL has no memory.
