FICO Scoring flawed?

[Anonymous]

I have long suspected that FICO scoring system is a flawed system.
As a real world example let me suppose the following data.
A person has a Fico score of 628, they open a new account of $700.00 (currently using just 15% of their available cedit lines)
They added to their debt by $90.00 and lose 4 FICO points.
Yet they add an additional increase of $700.00 in credit lines to be reported the following month, and pay down their debt without any new additions by $200.00, yet the expected FICO increase only returnsthem a gain of 2 FICO points.
Anyone else see anything wrong with these numbers?
I mean how true can FICO be if it depends on creditors to report properly the amounts of credit versus the amount of debt?
The reason I ask this is often creditors will increase credit limits even on zero balances, in which goes unreported.
This is data missed by FICO, at the whim of the creditor.
What is ignored is credit limit increases, FICO not knowing often is deprived of up to data, thus returns a false reading of credit worthiness of a potential debtor.
I am disposed to the principle of slowness in some areas of reporting by creditors, and perhaps FICO updating current information, versus the  quick ability to always post the negative first.

Should not FICO require a specific set of criteria equal ac ross the board at the same time by creditors?
Example should not FICO require that crfeditors answer if they granted a credit line increase, even during the same time in which a credit line is being used?
Because they don't it holds the credit line increase in hiatis untill a balance is billed, and then reported, thus slowing down real world accounts, in regards to credit scores.
A person should not lose 4 points by spending $90.00, when their available credit line has been increased by $700.00 in this example.

[Anonymous]

Apples to oranges

When you opened that account you took two hits. One for the inquire and one for the lowering your average of accounts. A month later when the card first reports you could get back some points for lower utilization if you crossed one of the thresholds.

But that inquire is still there. You will not get those points back for a year. That lower average age is still there and you will not get those points back until you increase your average age again.

So you did not lose 4 points for spending $90. And you only gain points for increasing your limit if it lowers your utilization below one of the known threshold. It is possible to get a new $10,000 limit card and see no increase at all.

[HeavenOhio]

Great response, @Anonymous.

There's also a third potential hit: age of youngest account (AoYA). If one's previous newest account is recent, there may not be a hit for that at all. But if it was greater than a year old, figure on 20 points for AoYA alone.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Anyone else see anything wrong with these numbers?

---

Yes, all of them.

No one is "losing 4 points for spending $90" and no one will "gain points from increasing their limit $700."

Someone can spend $90 and immediately pay it off.  Or, they can spend $90 and not pay it off and if it doesn't cause a utilization threshold crossing it won't impact scores.  A CLI of $700 if it doesn't cause utilization to move across a threshold will have zero impact on scores.  I've had CLI's for $20,000 and $27,000 on two different cards at different times during my credit journey and neither CLI caused me to gain even a single FICO point.

You aren't taking into consideration many "numbers" here, including AoYA, AAoA, scoreable inquiries and number of accounts with a balance; you aren't considering even half of the variables at play.

[Revelate]

I think also what is missed is not every change triggers a credit monitoring scoring update, but in fact every small change can impact one's actual FICO score as soon as it's reported.

Even Experian's service which is the best really for tracking small changes (with a full pull of all EX scores other than FICO 9 every day) conflates some things if multiple things report between two pulls.

The rest of them with various triggers, suffice to say they don't trigger on everything that we'd like as consumers.

[NRB525]

OP congrats on the new account / increase in overall credit limits.

If you want it to report the CL, buy a coffee with the card and let that report on the statement. The CCC will report both the balance and update the CL information.

Now you are a playa’ in The System, sticking it to The Man

[Anonymous]

True I agree with your assessment. Perhaps I should have explained it a bit better, the score drop wasn't directly reported via a FICO score from one of the three major reporting agencies, but identified by credit Karma, or sesamee one of those. They had placed the 4 point score drop beside the $90.00 new charge, so I was confused because I had paid off $200.00 in debt, so it made no sense to lose points for a new $90.00 charge. While the 4 point drop should have been placed by the inquiry, so was misleading to me. I need to watch how they report, as they don't always have everything the three contains.

[GApeachy]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps I should have explained it a bit better, the score drop wasn't directly reported via a FICO score from one of the three major reporting agencies, but identified by credit Karma, or sesamee one of those.

Okay, so you are referring to Vantage Score, not Fico score.    Something I noticed with Ck & Sesame Vantage scoring is that when I lose pts. (particularly from drop in debt amt.) I gain some with Fico.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

...but identified by credit Karma, or sesamee one of those. They had placed the 4 point score drop beside the $90.00 new charge, so I was confused...

---

Your problem there is two-fold.  One, don't look at CK scores, as they aren't FICO scores and are quite irrelevant.  What goes on with your CK scores is not indicative of what is/may be going on with your FICO scores.  Second, "alerts" or notifications of report changes like a new reported balance do not have to be directly tied to the score gain provided at that time.  In fact, many times they're completely unrelated.