Guess my score

[Thomas_Thumb]

I think you are extrapolating a bit with your numbers BBS. 

A profile with loans only is probably missing out on 80 to 100 points on Fico 8. Conversely, a file with cards only is missing out on 30 to 40 points. The OP has loans - just they are closed and cards that are open but, inactive. Found this from Revelate:

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Differences-between-FICO-08-and-FICO-04/...

The closed loans and inactive cards on file will count for something. In the OP's case, a mostly paid down (under 9%) SSL coupled with three active CCs at low aggregate utilization (only one reporting a balance) could boost OP's Fico 8 score a solid 80 points or more - IMO.

Lets say:

1) Token open SSL loan @ 8% B/L = +30 points

2) Use a couple inactive cards having decent CL, pay balances to zero & wait one reporting cycle + small balance on new card = +50 points or more

 - Generally no cards reporting a balance only costs 15 to 20 points. However, profiles that have reported on this drop all had active cards as I recall. In the OP's case I understand there have been no cards reporting balances in over a year.

I may be reading the OP's file incorrectly. Frankly, it appears none of his accounts had any activity in over a year (all loans closed) so it is a bit surprising he has Fico scores. Perhaps at least one of the inactive cards was reporting monthly a monthly "ok" instead of no activity - and now the new store card?

[Anonymous]

I suppose so, just his scores don't sit right with me based on his profile.  I guess his profile is quite unique in that it has no activity in a very long time, so I admit that it's something I've never seen or read about before.

[xaximus]

I would second that theory. I had a Citi card that I did not use that ended up showing as "inactive". I saw the drop in my TCL but the card was still active. So I believe the above is true. If a user does not use a card for a long term, 1) it's in danger of being closed for inactivity which will affect their TCL and utilization (if any), 2) if the card isn't closed, the CL might not show since it'll be classified as inactive either way.

I would suggest OP to put some small charges on each card and let it report so that the accounts stay active and there is some usage. That should cause the Fico scores to adjust.

[Anonymous]

In response to ThomasThumb,

The only reason that I had a FICO score at all is that I disputed inaccuracies on the tradeline with the 30 day late due to the date of the late payment being reported differently (incorrectly) on EX, TU and Innovis. They only got it right on EQ. I don't want my DOFD reporting any later than it actually is. The bank reported an on time payment for 04/18 when they "corrected" the information as whoever responded to the disputes didn't know what they were doing. It still isn't correct, but given that it will fall off in <1 year anyway and I'm not opening any loans any time soon, I'll probably just wait until it drops off.

--

All of the other cards reporting were closed by issuer a long time ago (more than 7 years) after a payment I made was credited to the wrong account and then reported as late. This caused a chain reaction that began with credit line reductions, actual defaults as I was already cash strapped and instantly lost all available credit, and ultimately closures even though most of the accounts were never late. Most of the issuers were willing to give me rather favorable long term payment arrangements, some as good as 0% for 60 months, so I still have some time with them in my file and it has been long enough that all of the negative tradelines are gone. While I am interested in the question of how old CCs are treated and what happens if they are used again, I will be unable to shine much light in that direction. I'm afraid the OP now seems misleading to me (I did add a note at the bottom and will add to it now), but it wasn't my intention. I was simply unaware of how differently open and closed accounts were treated by FICO scoring models. I thought closing accounts just started 10 year timer until they dropped off. Other than possible utilization impact, I didn't know there was an immediate effect. So for my ignorance and to anyone who feels their time has been wasted: I apologize. I do appreciate the information I was able to find here. It seems I knew a lot less about all this than I thought I did.

---

I have some additional data to report: with one (new) card now reporting 1% my Experian FICO 8 score has increased from 688 to 734 (+46).

I may follow up as each of 2 more cards individually report a small balance, but I feel a little reluctant to post now to be honest. Also, I may be taking an intial hit as these are new cards. The next reporting date is in 2.5-3 weeks.  After I've had 3 seperate cards seperately report a small balance, I will keep a small balance reporting on one and open an SSL.

[Anonymous]

Follow up (in case it is somehow useful to anyone):

Scores are experian fico 8. I have limited access to EQ/TU but based on the access I do have, there seems to be little variance.

The first card reporting a 1% balance had a large impact. (688 => 734)

I paid the card off (Chase off-cycle reports 0 balances) and my score declined an expected amount. (734 => 718)

I changed the statement date on a second card to expedite the process. This card reporting, however, had no short term impact in the sense that it, more or less, wasn't any different from the first. (718 => 730)

I am now expecting little impact from the third card, but will update again if I am surprised ... or if I open and mostly prepay a loan from the lender formerly known as an SSL lender.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Note: When all 3 new CC accounts report as active on OP's file score will likely include a "short term" new accounts penalty of 20 to 30 points (in addition to the inquiry impact). The impact disappears completely after 12 months and OP should see a nice score boost after the accounts reach 90 days - IMO. Of course the benefit of open active revolvers far outweighs the penalty associated with the new accounts.

I suspect OP's score could be in the 740 - 760 range after 3 months and 780 - 800 after 12 months with these new accounts - assuming a clean file and proper utilization management

[Anonymous]

Update: Score with accounts reporting 3 months age is 740, from 723.

Utilization is 0%, 0%, 5%.

Important Note: I did take a 7 point hit since the last post for a 3rd hard pull. No new accounts.

[Anonymous]

The 30 day late that was on my Experian report just fell off some time in the middle of this month at 6 years, 10 months. My Experian FICO 08 score went up 31 points to 771. The effect of a late payment might diminish slightly as it ages, but it still hurts quite a bit.

Edit/Update: It turns out that, while the "31 points" I previously reported is correct for one specific set of balances (0%, 0%, 12%), it isn't the whole story. Prior to this late falling off there were a number of factors that had no impact on my score. It did not matter if my AZEO card reported 25% utilization. It did not matter if a small balance was reported on two cards or even all of my cards. This is no longer the case. For example, going from 0%/0%/12% reported balances to 0%/1%/12% reduces my score by 2 points. So, where my score was always 740 before under a moderate range of balances, it is now "it depends, but around 770" for that same range of balances, so "about 30 points" is a better representation of the benefit I received.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The 30 day late that was on my Experian report just fell off some time in the middle of this month at 6 years, 10 months. My Experian FICO 08 score went up 31 points to 771. The effect of a late payment might diminish slightly as it ages, but it still hurts quite a bit.

---

Great data point and thanks for adding it.  Another member here recently about a month or two ago posted about the scoring benefit realized when their lone 30 day late payment fell off around the 7 year mark and I believe their score gain was 41 points.  Based on both of your data points, I think we could start to suggest to some that "around 35 points on average" could be had from a heavily aged minor delinquency coming off, so long as no other negative information is present.

[Trudy]

That's great!  I'm hoping EQ and EX will remove my lone 30 day early.  I received a 50 pt increase in TU when it was removed early in Jan 19 at 6y1m.  I suppose each bureau has a different impact.  I'll see later this year what happens with EQ and EX when that lone 30 day falls off.