Credit Scoring Primer, pub.5.17.20

[ccquest]

But what about when I posted these:
WF was first to report (7/9, 812 -> 794)
PenFed was second (7/29, 794 -> 790)
US Bank third (8/4, 790 -> 784).

I doubt those are age related metrics because it was all under 3 months then (each of those were apped on 6/26). The point drops distinctly occurred when each account showed up on my EX report.

[Anonymous]

---

@ccquest wrote:
But what about when I posted these:
WF was first to report (7/9, 812 -> 794)
PenFed was second (7/29, 794 -> 790)
US Bank third (8/4, 790 -> 784).

I doubt those are age related metrics because it was all under 3 months then (each of those were apped on 6/26). The point drops distinctly occurred when each account showed up on my EX report.

---

@ccquest if they occurred upon reporting then the first one was scorecard reassignment, age and possible utilization changes as a result of credit limit increases, assuming you did not already have a revolver under 12 months of age.

The subsequent cards reporting could only have caused changes as a result of aging metrics or utilization changes caused by credit limit changes.*

* unless the cards were among the first three cards to a profile, which would also cause an additional increase due to the too few bankcard penalty being reduced.

[Anonymous]

---

@KELSTAR wrote:

Hi all,

I must say that this thread has the most critical thinking I have seen in the community. I don't know how I missed it from the original date.

The information should be used in logic studies. You could say if these three FICO factors are true, then thus result should be logically known.

The students would learn something concrete instead of abstract like if 3 people are thus and then this?

Excellent!!!!!!!

Peace all!

---

@KELSTAR Thank you for the kind words! I'm glad you have enjoyed it and hopefully found it very useful!

[ccquest]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ccquest wrote:
But what about when I posted these:
WF was first to report (7/9, 812 -> 794)
PenFed was second (7/29, 794 -> 790)
US Bank third (8/4, 790 -> 784).

I doubt those are age related metrics because it was all under 3 months then (each of those were apped on 6/26). The point drops distinctly occurred when each account showed up on my EX report.

---

@ccquest if they occurred upon reporting then the first one was scorecard reassignment, age and possible utilization changes as a result of credit limit increases, assuming you did not already have a revolver under 12 months of age.

The subsequent cards reporting could only have caused changes as a result of aging metrics or utilization changes caused by credit limit changes.*

* unless the cards were among the first three cards to a profile, which would also cause an additional increase due to the too few bankcard penalty being reduced.

---

They were the 2nd to 4th cards on my report. Unless you're saying the average age of accounts has some sort of sliding scale that loses points incrementally, I'm not seeing that. From the start it was at not 0% utilization ($72 of whatever the total limit was starting at $9k up to $28k).

[Anonymous]

---

@ccquest wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ccquest wrote:
But what about when I posted these:
WF was first to report (7/9, 812 -> 794)
PenFed was second (7/29, 794 -> 790)
US Bank third (8/4, 790 -> 784).

I doubt those are age related metrics because it was all under 3 months then (each of those were apped on 6/26). The point drops distinctly occurred when each account showed up on my EX report.

---

@ccquest if they occurred upon reporting then the first one was scorecard reassignment, age and possible utilization changes as a result of credit limit increases, assuming you did not already have a revolver under 12 months of age.

The subsequent cards reporting could only have caused changes as a result of aging metrics or utilization changes caused by credit limit changes.*

* unless the cards were among the first three cards to a profile, which would also cause an additional increase due to the too few bankcard penalty being reduced.

---

They were the 2nd to 4th cards on my report. Unless you're saying the average age of accounts has some sort of sliding scale that loses points incrementally, I'm not seeing that. From the start it was at not 0% utilization ($72 of whatever the total limit was starting at $9k up to $28k).

---

@ccquest when I refer to second and third card, I mean on your report, not those you added recently.

I read so many threads, I apologize that I don't recall all the details, but that's right, you were adding cards because you only had one, right? And if I recall you did not have a revolver under 12 months of age when your second card reported, correct? 

Yes both AAoA and AAoRA have various thresholds and they are each worth a certain amount of points depending on scorecard and profile. As you cross thresholds, you continue to lose points. So yes they are most likely from age related metrics, but not from you gaining points over time, but from your average ages being reduced and crossing threshold(s) upon them reporting.

OK so if that's the case, the first one to report (your second card), would've caused scorecard reassignment, which would've simultaneously calculated any aging changes and utilization changes due to credit limit increases AND would've included point gain for adding a second card. The point change is the net result, 18 point loss. 

The third card upon reporting would have caused reductions in AAoA and AAoRA. If that caused you to cross any thresholds, that would've caused point loss. Likewise if adding the credit limit caused it to cross any utilization thresholds that could've caused gains. There would also be point gain from adding a third card. The point change is the net result, 4 point loss.

The fourth card would do everything the third card did, except for the point gain from adding a card. The point change is the net result, 6 point loss.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, does that make any more sense? Tell me if anything doesn't make sense or is inconsistent.

if you would like it would make a lot more sense of it, we can calculate your aging metrics before and after each change. Start with what those metrics were before you added the second card and then see what they are upon adding the second third and fourth cards. Depending on your utilization level we may have to take that into account as well. 

[Anonymous]

Just found a very old page on the Internet that lists reason codes with their numbers, just figured I would post it. Looks like the reason codes are from fico and the solution came from a third-party. 

I did notice under amounts owed it said under $5000 which is interesting. I don’t know if that’s something added or not; it’s not from a fico website, but I would assume the original reasons at least came from there.

I don't know how reliable the information is other than maybe the reason codes and the number associated.

http://www.videocreditscore.com/reason-codes-my-credit-score/

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Just found a very old page on the Internet that lists reason codes with their numbers, just figured I would post it. Looks like the reason codes are from fico and the solution came from a third-party. 

I did notice under amounts owed it said under $5000 which is interesting. I don’t know if that’s something added or not; it’s not from a fico website, but I would assume the original reasons at least came from there.

I don't know how reliable the information is other than maybe the reason codes and the number associated.

http://www.videocreditscore.com/reason-codes-my-credit-score/

---

I was just about to ask you in PM about that. lol

The source is Andy Jolls, and FICO.com has a page from 2006 showing his title as 'vice president of myFICO'. (FICO link, 2nd paragraph)

We already had the document/chart with all reason codes and numbers across EQ,TU, and EX, but maybe there is something important in his added information.

I would say that's a great find! And we can at least use that info as a general guideline and see if it fits!

[ccquest]

For my profile, definitely looks like 16 points is the penalty for All Zero. Didn't take the PenFed PCR $100 credit into account and and have everything at $0 again, lost 16 on EX.

On the plus side, PenFed updates basically immediately. Should go back up once BoA updates this week too (it also closes on the 20th).

[ccquest]

Guess I'm beyond the point where the new inquiry doesn't cause a point drop again (last was July 2nd, so definitely past 30 days). For the new CSP card I just got, the inquiry hit EX and AFAIK that is the only change at this time and caused a 7 point drop.

[Anonymous]

---

@ccquest wrote:
Guess I'm beyond the point where the new inquiry doesn't cause a point drop again (last was July 2nd, so definitely past 30 days). For the new CSP card I just got, the inquiry hit EX and AFAIK that is the only change at this time and caused a 7 point drop.

---

@ccquest did you mean new account or new inquiry? You said it didn't cost you any points but then it cost you 7 points? If you add a credit card, it should be penalize immediately. Only loan inquiries have the 30 day buffer.