@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I just want to point out that if OP has COs with balances that it is highly unlikely for them to reach AZEO.
This is also might be what is hindering mortgage scores since aggregate and individual util is still likely high, depending on the balances. For individual util, alone, the COs will have 100%+ util. Which mortgage scores hate.
Am I wrong? Do mortgage scores exclude COs util from scoring?
I honestly would say getting individual util down to $0 might be ideal on the open CCs. From my understanding mortgage score love $0 balances. I understand FICO 8 and the likes do not like all zero, but perhaps mortgage scores do. I will pull old reports and check.
Otherwise, the COs if they have balance are painful. Obviously the CAs too, but if they do not do PFD, it will be futile to pay them, as paying them generally does not increase your scores, only having no CAs will raise your score from that aspect.
Thoughts? @Anonymous
@Anonymous yes charge-offs will definitely hurt every version of the score and yes the mortgage scores like zeros more than the newer scores. Now as for the hundred percent utilization I think that is incorrect, but I haven't been able to determine the proper way to measure it yet, still exploring DPs and looking for more.
All zero is a penalty on all versions I know of, but I don't know whether closed cards or charged off revolvers are counted in that metric, but they definitely count towards utilization, I just don't know exactly how.
As a matter of fact, has anyone with the unpaid chargeoff gotten an AZ penalty?
and yes totally agree, no need paying a charge off unless it's a PFD, scorewise.
Sorry, I meant in general, a when a CC is CO'd, the individual util is immediately brought to 100%. Not aggreg util is 100%. If that is what you thought I meant lol
@Anonymous no I totally understood you, I just do not agree that a charged off account equals 100% individual utilization. Maybe in some situations, such as balance chasing I don't know?
I've ran the numbers on data points and just doesn't seem to be the case because the point changes and reason code resolution did not react in accordance.
That is interesting because on CRs it will have listed util at 100%+ for the account, itself. So the CRs will list 100%+ and then they calculate it differently for scoring?
@Anonymous The problem is your credit report doesn't contain utilization calculations, just balance, limit and other data. To determine utilization, a calculation is needed.
Does ACR give you utilization %? I don't think so, but some sources add other "helpful" calculations there, but the algorithm doesn't take their calculations; it takes the CR's raw data, balances and limits and other information, and does its own calculation, I believe.
Problem is, we haven't figured out exactly how the algo calculates it. The old common wisdom said COs were considered maxed out, but like I said, the data doesn't seem to support that from my reviews. Maybe In balance chasing situations? (or maybe I'm wrong or maybe there's another factor we haven't discovered?)
So just because fluff is added to the credit report (to make it more convenient/helpful to the consumer), that's not indicative of what the algorithm is doing. The algo calculates its own utilization metrics from the data; it doesn't use the CRA's or 3rd party's calculation.
The algorithms output is the score and the negative reason codes from my understanding. Those are our only guaranteed clues to follow. However, from the recent info from the experts, the ingredients section of MF may offer some insight, since the same team created it. Jmho.
ps. Where did u source the CR you refer to?
@Anonymous
Edit: Would be great to have someone who is making payments on a CO, so we could watch the changes.
