@Thomas_Thumb wrote:SJ - From another thread (pasted below) you mention a significant difference in public records.
The difference in presentation rating and score certainly could relate to your public records as speculated previously. Perhaps a negative passed an aging threshold reduced impact on score or, as mentioned, shifted you to a different scorecard and rating.
Yes but that would have no bearing on the "amount of debt" factor (utilization/balances/number of revolving accts reporting)
PS Although it's not relevant to this discussion -- about the "excellent" amount of debt factor, where MORE rather than LESS balances & accounts are reporting -- it's no longer the case, since EX finally removed the 3 bogus entries, so that now they're roughly equal in that department: TU 1, EQ 2, EX 2.
OK so now one mystery is cleared up.
I was wondering why my EX "amount of debt" was "very good" while TU & EQ were "excellent" as to "amount of debt", even though (a) overall utilization was the same percentage (1%) on all 3, (b) TU & EQ had MORE cards reporting balances (5 as opposed to EX's 4) & (c) TU & EQ had MORE total balance showing ($800 as opposed to EX's $78).
I was wondering if my EX "amount of debt" would have been BETTER if it had MORE cards and MORE balance reporting.
So now I have the answer to that question and the answer is no.
My EX numbers have moved up so that EX has utilization of 2% (as opposed to 1%), 7 cards reporting (as opposed to 4 cards), and total balances of $3050 (as opposed to $78).
My EX "amount of debt" continues to be "very good" as opposed to "exceptional".
I guess there's something built into EX's FICO algorithm that differs from those employed by TU & EQ.
No, it's just not the "amount of debt" thing. You are putting too much emphasis on squishy words. Excellent vs Very Good is not the issue.
TT bringing in the other thread? Please Pay Attention To That.
You have a Baddie. Say it with me: "I have a baddie"
As long as those baddies are on your file, the specifics of any score differences will be not explainable. Wierd, is the technical term.
After they are all removed, there may be better alignment in all the scores.
@NRB525 wrote:No, it's just not the "amount of debt" thing. You are putting too much emphasis on squishy words. Excellent vs Very Good is not the issue.
TT bringing in the other thread? Please Pay Attention To That.
You have a Baddie. Say it with me: "I have a baddie"
As long as those baddies are on your file, the specifics of any score differences will be not explainable. Wierd, is the technical term.
After they are all removed, there may be better alignment in all the scores.
1. The derogatory entries are the same now: 2 on EQ, 1 on TU, 2 on EX.
2. I'm not referring to my overall score, I'm referring to the "amount of debt" factor in the score, which according to MyFICO involves utilization, total accounts, and total balances.
3. PS I may have found an explanation for the discrepancy in the "amount of debt" factor: it seems that EX may have been erroneously considering that my instalment loan, on which there was a $78 balance, was initially $100, rather than $500 which was the actual amount. So I've paid that off completely, to remove it from the computations. Will see if the 3 scores get back into sync... or not.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:1. The derogatory entries are the same now: 2 on EQ, 1 on TU, 2 on EX.
2. I'm not referring to my overall score, I'm referring to the "amount of debt" factor in the score, which according to MyFICO involves utilization, total accounts, and total balances.
3. PS I may have found an explanation for the discrepancy in the "amount of debt" factor: it seems that EX may have been erroneously considering that my instalment loan, on which there was a $78 balance, was initially $100, rather than $500 which was the actual amount. So I've paid that off completely, to remove it from the computations. Will see if the 3 scores get back into sync... or not.
Good - Now you're making progress.
Maybe 
@SouthJamaica wrote:
2. I'm not referring to my overall score, I'm referring to the "amount of debt" factor in the score, which according to MyFICO involves utilization, total accounts, and total balances.
3. PS I may have found an explanation for the discrepancy in the "amount of debt" factor: it seems that EX may have been erroneously considering that my instalment loan, on which there was a $78 balance, was initially $100, rather than $500 which was the actual amount. So I've paid that off completely, to remove it from the computations. Will see if the 3 scores get back into sync... or not.
Ok, but even within this factor, each of the bureaus looks at the components differently.
It will be interesting to see if any score change results from paying off that installment loan. Is that your only installment loan?
@NRB525 wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
2. I'm not referring to my overall score, I'm referring to the "amount of debt" factor in the score, which according to MyFICO involves utilization, total accounts, and total balances.
3. PS I may have found an explanation for the discrepancy in the "amount of debt" factor: it seems that EX may have been erroneously considering that my instalment loan, on which there was a $78 balance, was initially $100, rather than $500 which was the actual amount. So I've paid that off completely, to remove it from the computations. Will see if the 3 scores get back into sync... or not.
Ok, but even within this factor, each of the bureaus looks at the components differently.
It will be interesting to see if any score change results from paying off that installment loan. Is that your only installment loan?
Yes it is. I only took it out to be invited to join in the "reindeer games"