How is new credit looked at?

[Red1Blue]

I am confused. I have same amount of new accounts reporting on both EQ and TU.

On the second page in Fico Score Reports for "New Credit",  TU it shows as "Good" and  EQ it shows as "Bad"

How can this be?

[haulingthescoreup]

How many inqs do you have on each?

[Red1Blue]

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:
How many inqs do you have on each?

---

1 on TU and 6 on EQ. New Credit should be based on the new accounts not inq's as inq's are hit with different category right?

[haulingthescoreup]

---

concorduser wrote:

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:
How many inqs do you have on each?

---

1 on TU and 6 on EQ. New Credit should be based on the new accounts not inq's as inq's are hit with different category right?

---

Well, that's why I asked --there seems to be a bit of overlap. I've noticed that in the past on my reports.

And it seems like different bureaus use slightly different terminology.

BTW, I don't know how authoritative these advisories are. I'm confused, you said the second page, but it sounds more like you're talking about the bars on screen 1, rather than the balance scale on screen two.

Are your AAoA and longest history the same on EQ and TU? the scoring formula is generally more forgiving of new accounts with young history, as you're expected to have to start somewhere. If EQ is older than TU, that might be a factor as well.

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 04-01-2009 06:54 PM

[Red1Blue]

Hauling, you are right, it is not the second page. It is bars  first page.

Here is info on the age.

TU

---------------------------- 

Your oldest account was opened
14 Years, 3 Months ago

Average age of your accounts
3 years

EQ

------------------------------------

Your oldest account was opened
14 Years, 3 Months ago

Average age of your accounts
4 years

[haulingthescoreup]

That is wonderfully weird, isn't it?

I guess TU likes your length of history, and EQ sneers at your AAoA (which is higher than the TU AAoA, but oh well.)