FICO vs Vantage 3.0

[pipeguy]

I am currently in the process of settling a family estate, one that is asset rich but cash poor. Long story short, I am fronting the estate funds for taxes, expenses and various other expenses using mostly credit cards (00% APR when possible). Over the last several months my utility has gone up as has my over all "open balances" - please understand that I have almost 200k in available credit and a lot of room. Several cards are curremtly at high utility (over 70%) and about $25k of my over all $30k in balances are directly tied to the estate. In the near future, a month from now, the estate will revert from cash poor to cash-rich and it's a good size estate, when all estate expenses will be paid including everything I've been floating for the past months.

What does this have to do with scoring? In the last month my FICO scores across the board have dropped 30+ points (still all over 700) and yet my Credit Karma (Cap-1 mirror, etc) have increased close to 40 points on both EQ and TU.  Go figure.... 

Should be interesting in August to see my FICO scores go +30 and my Vantage 3.0 scores go -40 

[Anonymous]

I'm going into the same situation.  Wishing you luck with everything.     I can see Fico going down but Creditkarma going up?  Very strange?  You know Cap One now uses another scoring system (most likely their own) than CK?  I have noticed CK taking their time to to updates recenty.  

[pipeguy]

I have not checked Cap-1 for a while it was such a joke I stopped looking. Funny thing is even Cap-1 did NOT use their online scoring system because I got a couple of responces from them that listed scoring and they did NOT match their online scores, not even close.

[Thomas_Thumb]

As mentioned elsewhere, Credit Karma's scores are VantageScore 3.0. This is a recent change for them - Before 2015 they used to report scores based on a different model. (VS 2.0? - can someone confirm old model please). Depending on when score was last checked a large shift in Credit Karma could relate to the model change.

Credit Karma reports two VS 3.0 numbers; one based on a TransUnion report and the other based on an Equifax report. My VS 3.0 scores as reported through CK were: TU 831 and EQ 830. I wanted to validate the scores so I also independently checked my VS 3.0 score directly through Experian. My score was EX 833. Validation = passed

Credit Karma is reporting true VantageScore 3.0 results based on information provided by TU and EQ. If there are concerns with scores (update timeliness excepted), the issue is not with CK, contact the CRAs and get a detailed credit report - the one I got direct from TU had more payment detail than the others.

[flan]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

As mentioned elsewhere, Credit Karma's scores are VantageScore 3.0. This is a recent change for them - Before 2015 they used to report scores based on a different model. (VS 2.0? - can someone confirm old model please). Depending on when score was last checked a large shift in Credit Karma could relate to the model change.

Credit Karma reports two VS 3.0 numbers; one based on a TransUnion report and the other based on an Equifax report. My VS 3.0 scores as reported through CK were: TU 831 and EQ 830. I wanted to validate the scores so I also independently checked my VS 3.0 score directly through Experian. My score was EX 833. Validation = passed

Credit Karma is reporting true VantageScore 3.0 results based on information provided by TU and EQ. If there are concerns with scores (update timeliness excepted), the issue is not with CK, contact the CRAs and get a detailed credit report - the one I got direct from TU had more payment detail than the others.

---

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

As mentioned elsewhere, Credit Karma's scores are VantageScore 3.0. This is a recent change for them - Before 2015 they used to report scores based on a different model. (VS 2.0? - can someone confirm old model please). Depending on when score was last checked a large shift in Credit Karma could relate to the model change.

---

CK used to report vs2, but the main score was TU's "New Account" risk score.  It's intended to judge the likely hood of a 60 day late in the first 3 years of account opening.  I don't know if anyone uses it for real.

[pipeguy]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

As mentioned elsewhere, Credit Karma's scores are VantageScore 3.0. This is a recent change for them - Before 2015 they used to report scores based on a different model. (VS 2.0? - can someone confirm old model please). Depending on when score was last checked a large shift in Credit Karma could relate to the model change.

Credit Karma reports two VS 3.0 numbers; one based on a TransUnion report and the other based on an Equifax report. My VS 3.0 scores as reported through CK were: TU 831 and EQ 830. I wanted to validate the scores so I also independently checked my VS 3.0 score directly through Experian. My score was EX 833. Validation = passed

Credit Karma is reporting true VantageScore 3.0 results based on information provided by TU and EQ. If there are concerns with scores (update timeliness excepted), the issue is not with CK, contact the CRAs and get a detailed credit report - the one I got direct from TU had more payment detail than the others.

---

FICO TU score is 746, CK aka Vantage Score 3.0 is 628 (before the current hiccup) and I have full access to my actual report anytime I want (unlimited EQ pulls) plus MyFico.

There is absolutely no logical reason that VS 3.0 rates me as "poor" yet I can get just about any prime card I want and qualifed for 1.49% through DCU for a car loan, etc.

[flan]

---

@pipeguy wrote:

There is absolutely no logical reason that VS 3.0 rates me as "poor" yet I can get just about any prime card I want and qualifed for 1.49% through DCU for a car loan, etc.

---

Sue there is.  Your credit profile triggers something that VS3 thinks is risky.  It's not "oh let's get that pipeguy", it's based on whatever the people who devised the scoring system though was risky, which is in turn based on anaylizing the files of millions of people for several years.  Something about what types of accounts you have, your payment history, your utilization history, etc says you're more likely to default than others. 

 There are also people reporting that their VS3 is much higher than their fico  8.  And people saying that their fico 09 and fico 8 are also wildly divergent.  That's expected.  As models get more accurate, people who were previously seen as similar risks are seperated better.  Are vs3 and fico 9 more accurate than predecssor scores?  Probably, but ask again in a few years. 

[Thomas_Thumb]

If you think Credit Karma is making an error you can independently check your VS 3.0 score through Experian. (I had to pay $7.95 to get it).

I see you note: "FICO TU score is 746, CK aka Vantage Score 3.0 is 628 (before the current hiccup)"

Perhaps the VS score througfh CK has factored in the hiccup but Fico TU has not. Based on the shift, I suspect the hiccup may have resulted in a change of scorecard associated with your profile. If things are in transition, allow records to stabilize for a couple months before reacting to score differences - unless you need to apply for new loans or credit in the next 60 days.

The VS 3.0 model does look at different factors relative to Fico 04 and Fico 08. However, a 118 point difference would most likely relate to a negative event influencing one score but not the other.

As an FYI my Fico 8 scores are 15 to 20 points higher than my VS 3.0 scores which are 0 to 30 points higher than my Fico 04 scores depending on the CRA.

[pipeguy]

We can go around and around all you want and I can show you that my credit profile is strong in age, payment history, zero baddies, whatever.... fact is by increasing my utilization due to the current VERY temporary hiccup, my FICO went down 32 points and my VS 3.0 went UP to 668 and that's just stupid when you consider utility up, balances up, still no missed or late payments, income the same, etc etc etc. 

I'm not trying to "prove" anything to anyone here, and I really don't care if you believe my profile is strong, Credit Karma aka Vantage Score 3.0 is a joke if in fact it is used as a credit granting guide. In a month I will pay every account down to zero with the exception of $1500 on Discover ($12k limit) and $6000 on Lowes ($17k limit, using 84 month promotional financing at 5.99% for a new roof last year). I'll bet you dollars to donuts (note I like donuts, thought I'd throw that in there) that my FICO scores will recover to at least mid-700's if not higher and my Credit Karma scores will drop back into the low 600's "poor" range. 

I have no idea how anyone can defend the CK/VS defective formula as valid.

[Revelate]

---

@pipeguy wrote:

We can go around and around all you want and I can show you that my credit profile is strong in age, payment history, zero baddies, whatever.... fact is by increasing my utilization due to the current VERY temporary hiccup, my FICO went down 32 points and my VS 3.0 went UP to 668 and that's just stupid when you consider utility up, balances up, still no missed or late payments, income the same, etc etc etc. 

I'm not trying to "prove" anything to anyone here, and I really don't care if you believe my profile is strong, Credit Karma aka Vantage Score 3.0 is a joke if in fact it is used as a credit granting guide. In a month I will pay every account down to zero with the exception of $1500 on Discover ($12k limit) and $6000 on Lowes ($17k limit, using 84 month promotional financing at 5.99% for a new roof last year). I'll bet you dollars to donuts (note I like donuts, thought I'd throw that in there) that my FICO scores will recover to at least mid-700's if not higher and my Credit Karma scores will drop back into the low 600's "poor" range. 

I have no idea how anyone can defend the CK/VS defective formula as valid.

---

You list some balances, what is your aggregate balance currently?

I have a theory though I haven't looked at VS codes to see, CnC astutely pointed out that it looks at specific limits it's entirely possible that their calculation for revolving debt is on an absolute scale rather than a percentage like FICO.  

That might account for some of the disparity you see.  In theory as well as likely practice - two people at the same income level, 5K of 20K limits is far easier to address than 50K of 200K limits but FICO is apparently blind to that in FICO 8 and earlier on the premise that income isn't reported... the CRA's might've taken a different tact in looking at the data as lenders all seem to take the "ability to repay" only to their own lines irrespective of anyone else's extension of credit.