@Anonymous wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:The card has now been paid to zero and fewer cards will be reporting balances next cycle. Not sure why the the mortgage company has not updated the loan to report as paid and closed.
Side note: My Fico sensitivity index went from 48 to 57.
That EQ 5 score is interesting to me.
All 3 mortgage scores have 'Too many accounts with balances', but EQ 5 has an additional code for 'Number of bank or national revolving accounts with balances' (#23). (See mortgage scores reason differential here.)
Yet another data point showing the EQ FICO Resilience Index cares most about balances. Someone with an EQ 850 has a 39 on it right now, and of course balances are very low.
Below is a side by side comparison of all Classic scores for the two reports. Fico 9 reacted more strongly than did Fico 8 to the jump in revolving utilization across the board. This could be due to potentially having a larger buffer on Fico 8. However, I don't think that is the case because I have seen TU Fico 8 drop below 850 a few times while my TU Fico 9 stayed at 850. So, my conclusion is Fico 9 is more responsive to changes in utilization than is Fico 8.
Also of note is the disproportionately large drop in EX score on the older Fico models.
Edit add - For completeness and future reference Industry Enhanced scores are presented in the table below:
Below are the negative reason statements I received on my 11-5-2020 report for elevated revolving utilization with all 6 of my open accounts showing balances. I believe the count includes my mortgage but excludes the AU card which had a balance on it.
Side note:
1. TU VantageScore 3.0 dropped from 828 to 810 due to the increase in utilization.
2. EX VantageScore 3.0 dropped to 810 as well due to the increase in utilization.
3. Ag utilization per VS 3.0 is 11% vs 13% for Fico because VS includes my high CL AU card which was reporting a small balance.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
So, my conclusion is Fico 9 is more responsive to changes in utilization than is Fico 8.
Also of note is the disproportionately large drop in EX score on the older Fico models.
Very nice data!
EQ/TU FICO 9 is very sensitive to accounts with balances as well.
These are the changes from 3 of 4 to 2 of 4 reporting a balance. (Full details)
| 8 | BC8 | AU8 | MTG | AUT | BKC | 9 | BC9 | AU9 | 3 |
EQ | 0 | +3 | 0 | +3 | +3 | +2 | +9 | +9 | +13 | |
TU | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +16 | +16 | +16 |
|
EX | 0 | +2 | 0 | -2 | -2 | -2 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +4 |
EX 3 gave me +4 at 2-of-4 with a balance compared with prior month at 3-of-4.
Then +6pts at 1-of-4 with a balance, and +9 at All Zero - all compared to prior month at 2-of-4.
On this same report, EX 2 went up +11 at 1-of-4, +8 at All Zero.
You're definitely right about these older EX FICO models.
Below is a more comprehensive comparison of 3B data sets. Although they span a significant perion of time, change in aging is not a factor when comparing these data sets. The last account I opened was in 2011. I have maintained the same open accounts throughout.
When reviewing this data (2018 to 2017/2020), I noted a peak in Fico 98 (EX score 2, highlighted in green) on the 2018 report. However, all Fico 04 scores (EQ score 5, TU score 4 and EX score 3) and their Industry Enhanced counterparts all dropped substantially from the prior 2017 report values (highlighted in red). EQ score 5 values (highlighted in blue) were influenced heavily by # of card accounts with balances.
My report shows a substantial increase in AU card utilization but, low utilization if the AU card is excluded. My conclusion is that the Fico 04 algorithm is factoring in my AU card account but, Fico 9/Fico 8/Fico 98 versions are not.
The primary variables influencing score amoung these 3B reports are change in # of accounts reporting balances and changes in individual/aggregate revolving utilization. A secondary factor is number of INQ going from zero to one and back to zero on EQ/TU.
My file is still showing my mortgage as open with a balance of $1819 remaining. I guess if it never gets reported as paid and closed that's a plus for my scores.
| Description | 11/5/2020 | 10/13/2020 | 4/7/2020 | 4/16/2018 | 3/25/2017 |
| Ag UT $ (Exclude AU) | $11,005 | $2,951 | $285 | $620,$506 | $354 |
| Ag UT % (Exclude AU) | 13% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| High card $ (no AU) | $9,664 | $1,829 | $165 | $469 | $270 |
| High card UT % (no AU) | 54% | 15% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| AU card UT $ | $2,658 | $908 | $775 | $5,707 | $918 |
| AU card UT % | 8% | 3% | 2% | 17% | 3% |
| AG UT $ (inc AU) | $13,663 | $3,859 | $1,060 | $6,327 | $1,272 |
| AG UT % (inc AU) | 11% | 3% | 1% | 6% | 2% |
| INQ by CRA | 0,0,0 | 0,0,0 | 0,0,0 | 1,1,0 | 0,0,0 |
| Accts with bal (no AU) | 6,6,6 | 6,6,6 | 5,5,5 | 4,4,3 | 3,3,3 |
| EQ Fico 8 | 843 | 850 | 850 | 850 | 850 |
| TU Fico 8 | 835 | 850 | 850 | 850 | 850 |
| EX Fico 8 | 846 | 850 | 850 | 850 | 850 |
| EQ Fico 04 (score 5) | 749 | 764 | 790 | 777 | 804 |
| TU Fico 04 (score 4) | 806 | 818 | 823 | 801 | 823 |
| EX Fico 04 (score 3) | 791 | 819 | 830 | 809 | 830 |
| EX Fico 98 (score 2) | 787 | 820 | 839 | 842 | 839 |
| EQ Fico 9 | 830 | 850 | 850 | 850 | 850 |
| TU Fico 9 | 834 | 850 | 850 | 850 | 850 |
| EX Fico 9 | 842 | 850 | 850 | 850 | 850 |
| EQ BCE Fico 8 | 850 | 878 | 881 | 881 | 887 |
| TU BCE Fico 8 | 862 | 880 | 880 | 891 | 899 |
| EX BCE Fico 8 | 878 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 900 |
| EQ BCE Fico 04 | 743 | 776 | 808 | 786 | 822 |
| TU BCE Fico 04 | 817 | 853 | 858 | 812 | 858 |
| EX BCE Fico 98 | 792 | 845 | 861 | 867 | 864 |
| EQ BCE Fico 9 | 838 | 867 | 873 | 868 | 876 |
| TU BCE Fico 9 | 839 | 869 | 870 | 873 | 879 |
| EX BCE Fico 9 | 844 | 874 | 874 | 878 | 879 |
| EQ Auto Fico 8 | 857 | 878 | 884 | 881 | 887 |
| TU Auto Fico 8 | 861 | 879 | 879 | 882 | 891 |
| EX Auto Fico 8 | 871 | 899 | 899 | 895 | 897 |
| EQ Auto Fico 04 | 778 | 795 | 818 | 807 | 831 |
| TU Auto Fico 04 | 822 | 867 | 872 | 837 | 872 |
| EX Auto Fico 98 | 787 | 832 | 858 | 861 | 858 |
| EQ Auto Fico 9 | 836 | 867 | 878 | 870 | 885 |
| TU Auto Fico 9 | 842 | 871 | 871 | 870 | 880 |
| EX Auto Fico 9 | 856 | 882 | 882 | 886 | 887 |
I logged into Credit Karma today to check on my mortgage status. The loan shows paid in full and closed on EQ but, still shows open with one payment remaining on TU. Interestingly my EQ VS 3.0 score went up 3 points on EQ while my TU score remained unchanged. TU appear to be 3 business days behind on updating their database from my experiences. I'll wait until late next week to pull a 3B which should by then show my mortgage as paid and closed on all three CAs.
FWIW - I looked at my WF account to see what they were reporting for EX Classic Fico 9 score and what, if any, reason codes were displayed. Fortunately, unlike reports from FICO, WF does list negative reason statements for classic scores in the 800 - 849 range.
Below is what WF showed (based on Ag UT at 13%, 6 cards reporting balances and high card at 54% UT):
All as expected. My mortgage was still reporting as open. However, I had no other installment loans.
The "lack of recent installment loan information" is present because this particular metric excludes mortgages..