cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Huh? Is 36 Years Really a Short Credit History?

tag
Thomas_Thumb
Senior Contributor

Re: Huh? Is 36 Years Really a Short Credit History?


@Revelate wrote:

So why did my FICO 04 Classic scores not move at all when tested with a real credit report and heavily monitored during that time whereas FICO 8 and FICO 2 did? 

 

I guess it doesn't matter much, much like revolving utilization less is better when it comes to what you owe on your installment accounts.

 


I don't know why you and SJ see different results on Fico 04 relative to having/not having an open installment loan. We do know presence/lack of an open loan is less influential on the older Fico 04 and Fico 98 models..

 

The primary difference I have seen with Classic Fico 04 vs Classic Fico 98 is a high ratio of B/HB on my AMEX charge card strongly influences EX Fico 98 (score 2) but has no affect on EX Fico 04 (score 3), TU Fico 04 (score 4) or EQ Fico 04 (score 5).

 

The last 3B I pulled in 4/2018 showed a significant (over 20 point) score drops in EQ 04, TU 04 and EX 04 but a slight increase in EX 98. I attribute the Fico 04 score drops to a high reported balance on my AU card along with a high % of cards reporting balances. I just don't know why EX Fico 98 went up 3 points while EX Fico 04 dropped 21 points. Is Fico 98 less sensitive to individual card utilization?

Fico 9: .......EQ 850 TU 850 EX 850
Fico 8: .......EQ 850 TU 850 EX 850
Fico 4 .....:. EQ 809 TU 823 EX 830 EX Fico 98: 842
Fico 8 BC:. EQ 892 TU 900 EX 900
Fico 8 AU:. EQ 887 TU 897 EX 899
Fico 4 BC:. EQ 826 TU 858, EX Fico 98 BC: 870
Fico 4 AU:. EQ 831 TU 872, EX Fico 98 AU: 861
VS 3.0:...... EQ 835 TU 835 EX 835
CBIS: ........EQ LN Auto 940 EQ LN Home 870 TU Auto 902 TU Home 950
Message 21 of 22
Revelate
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Huh? Is 36 Years Really a Short Credit History?

I didn't have enough access to TU-98 when it was provided here to know how it was affected on balances, and I don't get regular 98 pulls for that matter either so really can't say.  Agreed Amex balances are in FICO 98, FICO 04 was where the Term = 1 month exclusion came into play.

 

As for the datasets on installment utilization: I don't mean to call SJ out on this one but I remember that and it struck me at the time that the file was incredibly busy and that's really hard to isolate discrete events.  I also believe Jamie among others found similar things that I did in that ridiculously long thread.

 

Twice I ran the test, and both times produced same results with regards to FICO 8/98 moving, and FICO 04 sitting pat: full 1B/3B reports to verify... I don't know how we can get better data than that.

 

Again it doesn't really matter that much, ultimately smaller amounts owed are better financially and for FICO purposes as long as it's not $0 on installment loans and as such paying them down if it makes financial sense to do so is absolutely righteous and I don't really think it matters much beyond that.  Ultimately FICO 98 is only used in the mortgage trifecta and very very rarely elsewhere as the vast majority of pullers have updated... and there's nothing bad about pulling the SSL trick anyway for any FICO model other than the potential new account or AAOA dings. 




        
Message 22 of 22
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.