No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
^^^^Agreed.
Yeah we do know that it is a metric due to the published reason codes, so its factual, not opinion, that raw dollar amounts matter.
But as @Anonymous said, to what extent we can only speculate.
I've kept aggregate utilization constant at 2% or 3% but taken a single card from a tiny reported 2-digit balance to a 4-digit balance (bringing the single card from 1% utilization to say 6%) and have seen minor Fico score fluctuations. That's enough for me to say that raw dollar amounts are considered since I see no way that percentages would matter in that example.
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I've always been of the opinion that raw dollar amounts matter in addition to utilization percentages. For those with very high relative credit limits (both individual and aggregate) the dollar amounts will have a greater impact of course than for those with smaller limits.
I'm of the opinion that it's percentages, not raw dollar amounts.
I'm not able to prove it, but since we're talking about opinions.....
How can you say that it's all about percentages when 'Amount owed on revolving accounts is too high' is right there in the Reason Statement/Code list for all 3 bureaus?
It's proof positive that yes, dollar amounts do matter. To what extent we don't really know, but I know that you're one of the few in a position to even begin to test it.
The choice of language in a FICO reason code is not "proof positive" of the content of the algorithm.
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I've always been of the opinion that raw dollar amounts matter in addition to utilization percentages. For those with very high relative credit limits (both individual and aggregate) the dollar amounts will have a greater impact of course than for those with smaller limits.
I'm of the opinion that it's percentages, not raw dollar amounts.
I'm not able to prove it, but since we're talking about opinions.....
How can you say that it's all about percentages when 'Amount owed on revolving accounts is too high' is right there in the Reason Statement/Code list for all 3 bureaus?
It's proof positive that yes, dollar amounts do matter. To what extent we don't really know, but I know that you're one of the few in a position to even begin to test it.
The choice of language in a FICO reason code is not "proof positive" of the content of the algorithm.
It absolutely is proof.
The presence of the reason statement in that list tells us that the algorithm has code to penalize in some manner based on the dollar amount owed on all revolving accounts. When that code path gets executed and points are deducted, that reason statement can be thrown.
Whether or not we see the reason statement depends on the particular CMS and where it is in the list. Even with myFICO 3B monitoring, I sometimes see 2 reasons for my TU 8 score on the PDF report, where the score change alerts always show me 4 of them.
It might also be that high dollar balances on revolving accounts trigger (maybe a simple boolean flag at threshold, or weighted) a higher penalty for the percentage-based code and a reason statement related to percentages takes higher precedence.
You've never seen 'Amount owed on revolving accounts too high', yet you observe many score changes in the (0,9]% interval , so that's my reason for thinking it's some sort of trigger.
@Trudy wrote:Yeah I thought about the varying thresholds some people find below 8.9%. I noticed the below from EX's site today. I know 4% and below hasn't caused a change in EX F8 for me in the past. Not sure I can recall if I ever had 5% aggregate and/or without something else happening. I'll eventually find out. I will see when the one revolver reports $0 in a few days and drops me below 6%.
@Trudy wrote:
Thanks for the info @Anonymous . Good point regarding the dollar value of 3% in your example. This is not the 1st time where raw dollars seemed to support a change but previously I never saw it impact my F8 score and not sure it has in this case as I went from 0.50% ($475) to 6.43% ($6018.17). Thought possibly 6K may be a raw dollar figure but interestingly that previously reported revolver reported $0 today. Bringing my total reporting from 2 back to 1 rev (2 inst). Dollars from $6018.17 to $5543.17, aggregate 6.34% to 5.84%....and I lost 1 point on all EX2 scores, gained 2 points on CC3. Not even going to try to figure that one out So clearly it's not 6K nor <6%.
As @Anonymous reminded, testing after August may be challenging as my AoYA will be 1Y on 9/1, new scorecard.
Although EX showed the 1 acct reporting zero a day later and I somehow lost a point on EX2 scores, today I received the alert for the $0 bringing me below 6K. Surprisingly today my scores increased. EQ & TU reported the increase in UTL >6K and went from EQ (850 to 849) and TU (850 to 846). I also received an alert for EQ that the $0 balance reported and did not gain back any points but TU has not reported the $0 bal card.
Wish I had 1 more day in August (not really) to see if the $0 bal reporting to TU makes a difference but I assume I'll be back to 850 for EQ & TU and finally hit 850 with EX tomorrow since my AoYA hits 1yr 9/1.
@Anonymous wrote:I've kept aggregate utilization constant at 2% or 3% but taken a single card from a tiny reported 2-digit balance to a 4-digit balance (bringing the single card from 1% utilization to say 6%) and have seen minor Fico score fluctuations. That's enough for me to say that raw dollar amounts are considered since I see no way that percentages would matter in that example.
@Anonymous interestingly enough on a young thin card, Cassie observed, I believe, aggregate and individual thresholds at 4%.
While remaining with aggregate under 4%, any time one revolver went over 4% individual, there was a penalty.
@Trudy wrote:@Trudy wrote:Yeah I thought about the varying thresholds some people find below 8.9%. I noticed the below from EX's site today. I know 4% and below hasn't caused a change in EX F8 for me in the past. Not sure I can recall if I ever had 5% aggregate and/or without something else happening. I'll eventually find out. I will see when the one revolver reports $0 in a few days and drops me below 6%.
@Trudy wrote:
Thanks for the info @Anonymous . Good point regarding the dollar value of 3% in your example. This is not the 1st time where raw dollars seemed to support a change but previously I never saw it impact my F8 score and not sure it has in this case as I went from 0.50% ($475) to 6.43% ($6018.17). Thought possibly 6K may be a raw dollar figure but interestingly that previously reported revolver reported $0 today. Bringing my total reporting from 2 back to 1 rev (2 inst). Dollars from $6018.17 to $5543.17, aggregate 6.34% to 5.84%....and I lost 1 point on all EX2 scores, gained 2 points on CC3. Not even going to try to figure that one out So clearly it's not 6K nor <6%.
As @Anonymous reminded, testing after August may be challenging as my AoYA will be 1Y on 9/1, new scorecard.
Although EX showed the 1 acct reporting zero a day later and I somehow lost a point on EX2 scores, today I received the alert for the $0 bringing me below 6K. Surprisingly today my scores increased. EQ & TU reported the increase in UTL >6K and went from EQ (850 to 849) and TU (850 to 846). I also received an alert for EQ that the $0 balance reported and did not gain back any points but TU has not reported the $0 bal card.
Wish I had 1 more day in August (not really) to see if the $0 bal reporting to TU makes a difference but I assume I'll be back to 850 for EQ & TU and finally hit 850 with EX tomorrow since my AoYA hits 1yr 9/1.
@Trudy keep in mind if you log into Experian, thats your pull for the day. It won't refresh again if anything changes later in the day.
Also keep in mind there have been weird coincidences where it seems the change has appeared and then the score change the following day or vice versa. I don't know if it has something to do with the order of operations or what. And it's not something that I have seen or read about often, but good to keep in mind.
@Anonymous wrote:@Anonymous interestingly enough on a young thin card, Cassie observed, I believe, aggregate and individual thresholds at 4%.
Right, so on a old/thick one like myself that's all the more evidence IMO that raw dollars can matter outside of percentage.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Trudy wrote:@Trudy wrote:Yeah I thought about the varying thresholds some people find below 8.9%. I noticed the below from EX's site today. I know 4% and below hasn't caused a change in EX F8 for me in the past. Not sure I can recall if I ever had 5% aggregate and/or without something else happening. I'll eventually find out. I will see when the one revolver reports $0 in a few days and drops me below 6%.
@Trudy wrote:
Thanks for the info @Anonymous . Good point regarding the dollar value of 3% in your example. This is not the 1st time where raw dollars seemed to support a change but previously I never saw it impact my F8 score and not sure it has in this case as I went from 0.50% ($475) to 6.43% ($6018.17). Thought possibly 6K may be a raw dollar figure but interestingly that previously reported revolver reported $0 today. Bringing my total reporting from 2 back to 1 rev (2 inst). Dollars from $6018.17 to $5543.17, aggregate 6.34% to 5.84%....and I lost 1 point on all EX2 scores, gained 2 points on CC3. Not even going to try to figure that one out So clearly it's not 6K nor <6%.
As @Anonymous reminded, testing after August may be challenging as my AoYA will be 1Y on 9/1, new scorecard.
Although EX showed the 1 acct reporting zero a day later and I somehow lost a point on EX2 scores, today I received the alert for the $0 bringing me below 6K. Surprisingly today my scores increased. EQ & TU reported the increase in UTL >6K and went from EQ (850 to 849) and TU (850 to 846). I also received an alert for EQ that the $0 balance reported and did not gain back any points but TU has not reported the $0 bal card.
Wish I had 1 more day in August (not really) to see if the $0 bal reporting to TU makes a difference but I assume I'll be back to 850 for EQ & TU and finally hit 850 with EX tomorrow since my AoYA hits 1yr 9/1.
@Trudy keep in mind if you log into Experian, thats your pull for the day. It won't refresh again if anything changes later in the day.
Balance was updated at the time I logged in so I would normally expect to see a change in score at that time if one would occur.
Also keep in mind there have been weird coincidences where it seems the change has appeared and then the score change the following day or vice versa. I don't know if it has something to do with the order of operations or what. And it's not something that I have seen or read about often, but good to keep in mind.
Yep, I recall you mentioning the possible delay in score update otherwise I would feel completely lost about the change happening the next day, a change that I assume would happen when the account was updated the day before.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I've kept aggregate utilization constant at 2% or 3% but taken a single card from a tiny reported 2-digit balance to a 4-digit balance (bringing the single card from 1% utilization to say 6%) and have seen minor Fico score fluctuations. That's enough for me to say that raw dollar amounts are considered since I see no way that percentages would matter in that example.
@Anonymous interestingly enough on a young thin card, Cassie observed, I believe, aggregate and individual thresholds at 4%.
While remaining with aggregate under 4%, any time one revolver went over 4% individual, there was a penalty.
That report is here.
EQ/TU 8 always give the +3/+1 award with aggregate in the (0,4]% interval on my scorecard - it doesn't matter for those 2 if one of the cards is at 5% or 7%. Also probably why many will miss this one if they only use EX monitoring - all the cards have to be at 4% or below.