How do closed revolvers impact the "number of cards reporting" metric?

[Anonymous]

Rev, how would you explain NRB's Post 11 where with a closed account with a balance he was able to see score fluctuations by taking other (open) cards across thresholds?  One would think if the closed account with a balance counted as maxed out, all other (non-maxed out) cards would not impose penalties, assuming aggregate thresholds were not crossed of course, no?

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Rev, how would you explain NRB's Post 11 where with a closed account with a balance he was able to see score fluctuations by taking other (open) cards across thresholds?  One would think if the closed account with a balance counted as maxed out, all other (non-maxed out) cards would not impose penalties, assuming aggregate thresholds were not crossed of course, no?

---

Why would one maxed card preclude damage from a second maxxed one?

I admittedly skimmed over that post the first time but re-reading it I don't quite understand the assertion being made: in my experience a maxxed out tradeline (assuming aggregate is still in check) is a minor ding, like inquiry levels for me when I was able to play with it.

That doesn't mean if I had gone and maxxed a second card out at the same time that it wouldn't have been more of an impact, maybe diminishing returns but not necessarily zero is my point.  

There's different levels of quality in terms of how tight the credit experiment was, I just can't see where this was much of a datapoint TBH, and similar problem to unfortunately others that I've seen in the past, hence my harping on gold standard vs. things that aren't as good.'

On the flipside if NRB who I think has the 3B wanted to see where his breakpoints were in terms of revolvers and accounts with balances wouldn't be hard to compare with others with similar numbers of accounts and see where the numbers matched or didn't.  I hit 3 month AOYA in just over a week, after that I think I might start swiping to put balances on all my cards but it's a little difficult cause so many of my accounts have the same statement dates to isolate exact breakpoints easily: maybe I'll go change those around to spread out the report dates.

[BallBounces]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

@NRB525 wrote:

The Closed Account Dragon gets passed around, because most people don't have the experience of keeping a closed account for a long enough time to test. My situation is unique because of the 1.99% Forever APR on this closed account. It's a unicorn

---

@NRB525 ,

Ahh, but I bet there are plenty of people with "closed accounts with balance" with a 0% effective APR ....  

Again as an academic exercise, a hypothetical:

Assume one has 3 open accounts (AZEO), and 3 closed accounts with balances.  Would they benefit from adding two more, 3 more, 4 more new open accounts with 0 balances, realtive only to the "% of accounts carrying a balance" metric?  (Ignore AoYA, AAoA and INQ costs)

---

Closed accounts still charge interest, where are you getting the 0% figure from?  My opinion is there's basically zero of those, loans or CC's always charge interest with the exception of promotional periods, there's actual IRS regulations that define minimum interest FWIW.

---

It is possible to negotiate. It's possible to have a closed account on a 0% interest period.  I can tell you from personal experience - that's where I am "getting it from". 

[Revelate]

I don’t mean to laugh but you believe that is the case for many?

When you likely take a non-trivial scoring hit for it assuming it is tagged much like a DMP?

Doubt it.

[BallBounces]

@revelate,

I'm not saying it is "ideal".

shrug.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

---

Why would one maxed card preclude damage from a second maxxed one?

---

My understanding was always that after aggregate utilization (which is King) one's highest individual utilization card is considered by the algorithm.  I was never under the impression that a second card at the same utilization would impact that factor, as the highest individual utilization would remain constant... again, assuming an aggregate threshold was not crossed.  I always thought this was the case with any highest individual line... be it maxed out, 73%, 55%, whatever.  If you have one card at any of those percentages and bring another up to that percentage or anywhere in that threshold range, so long as aggregate utilization stays in the same range, score wouldn't be further impacted in terms of "highest individual utilization" account.  Perhaps I've come to believe this incorrectly?

[BallBounces]

hmmm, I have never understood that to be the case, BBS.

[Anonymous]

---

@BallBounces wrote:

hmmm, I have never understood that to be the case, BBS.

---

Have have you understood "highest individual utilization account" then?

[Revelate]

Needs real testing. Not in a position to do that unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

I always thought that plenty of testing was already done with respect to highest individual utilization revolver and that there was a concensus/concrete finding that only the highest one mattered.  If that's not the case, I've misunderstood this for literally years.