@Anonymous wrote:
@CreditDunce wrote:I think FICO doesn't something like
0-1 INQ - no penalty
2-3 - small penalty
4-5 - moderate penalty
6-7 - larger penalty
8-9 - larger penalty
10+ - max penalty
Even with 10+ the penalty isn't that big. At least on the non-derog buckets. Note: I don't know if 10 is the exact number or not. The penalty stays the same for the entire 12 months, then is no longer counted with FICO. If most of the INQ's are auto financing related, some of the INQs are probably being grouped together. The grouped together INQs are only counting as one 1 INQ.
Now that you have multiple credit lines, your best course of action is to let them age. You are welcome to try to increase your limits with SP in the mean time. Barclay, Cap1, Citi, Discover, FNBO and US Bank will give SP CLI's (for the non-secured accounts). But be sure to read up on how to request it. For example, it will always be a Barclay HP if you request it via the web interface. If the cards are secured, you will have to wait until the card is unsecured (if the bank graduates cards). For cards that do graduate, it would probably be best to start with a larger amount since they typically graduate with the same limit or slightly larger.
PS. The reason codes they give you for denial are not necessarily the real reason you are getting denied. The BK/public record may be the real reason, even if they don't say.
Where did you get the information on the inquiry penalties? Is this factual information, or something you have determined?
Not factual and it varies somewhat via model, but it's a fairly close description from what data we do have at least in how it works though I suspect the bins north of 1 have increasing ranges on them.
@Anonymous: with the way the algorithm works it'd actually be less of a score problem on a dirty file than a clean file (any shift in score is magnified due to the wider range score buckets)... so it's accurate to state the penalty isn't that severe for anyone, though to be fair I'd rather be at 800 and taking a bunch of inquiries pre-mortgage than 720 and taking the same number of inquiries so from that perspective it's more painful dirty file, but in absolute score terms it's a smaller shift on the dirty file.
@CostantinoA wrote:I trade in my cars often so you know each time a bunch of inquires.
Well, those should be automatically grouping if you are just making a trade-in, and a bunch of vehicle INQ are at the same time.
If you categorize the vehicle INQ from the others, should be some less, right?
And the INQ factor may be a comparison of CC INQ vs number of CC Accounts, or New Accounts (less than 2 years) vs All Revolvers. either one of those will show a very hig proportion and could be classified as Too Many INQ.
Likely best to stop apping for a while, grow some of those cards such as the Discover, and let the INQ age.
If you have the PR and BK, what is the additional count of Negatives?
@Revelate wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@CreditDunce wrote:I think FICO doesn't something like
0-1 INQ - no penalty
2-3 - small penalty
4-5 - moderate penalty
6-7 - larger penalty
8-9 - larger penalty
10+ - max penalty
Even with 10+ the penalty isn't that big. At least on the non-derog buckets. Note: I don't know if 10 is the exact number or not. The penalty stays the same for the entire 12 months, then is no longer counted with FICO. If most of the INQ's are auto financing related, some of the INQs are probably being grouped together. The grouped together INQs are only counting as one 1 INQ.
Now that you have multiple credit lines, your best course of action is to let them age. You are welcome to try to increase your limits with SP in the mean time. Barclay, Cap1, Citi, Discover, FNBO and US Bank will give SP CLI's (for the non-secured accounts). But be sure to read up on how to request it. For example, it will always be a Barclay HP if you request it via the web interface. If the cards are secured, you will have to wait until the card is unsecured (if the bank graduates cards). For cards that do graduate, it would probably be best to start with a larger amount since they typically graduate with the same limit or slightly larger.
PS. The reason codes they give you for denial are not necessarily the real reason you are getting denied. The BK/public record may be the real reason, even if they don't say.
Where did you get the information on the inquiry penalties? Is this factual information, or something you have determined?
Not factual and it varies somewhat via model, but it's a fairly close description from what data we do have at least in how it works though I suspect the bins north of 1 have increasing ranges on them.
@Anonymous: with the way the algorithm works it'd actually be less of a score problem on a dirty file than a clean file (any shift in score is magnified due to the wider range score buckets)... so it's accurate to state the penalty isn't that severe for anyone, though to be fair I'd rather be at 800 and taking a bunch of inquiries pre-mortgage than 720 and taking the same number of inquiries so from that perspective it's more painful dirty file, but in absolute score terms it's a smaller shift on the dirty file.
Agree - Bins almost certainly do increase in QTY range as bin # increases. I think it goes something like:
Bin #1 = 0 to 1
Bin #2 = 2 to 3
Bin #3 = 4 to 6
Bin #4 = 7 to 10
Bin #5 = 11 or more
The above is based on "unassociated" inquirie counts - so 5 grouped together in a 14 day time due to rate shopping would count as 1 in a bin. In addition to bins, there could be a separate penalty associated with a bunch of new inquiries/accounts less than 90 days old. That's a speculation on my part.
Here's an inquiry rating table from CK for another indication of how inquiries may be binned. Note: as Revelate would point out, this is a CK presentation and not an official VantageScore 3.0 table.
See below for an illustration of how Fico looks at factor weights depending on Clean/Dirty scorecards. [Note: the slide, although from Fico, is a fictitious example]
@TT if there were a penalty sub-90 day call it, it should show up in the reason codes?
EQ Beacon 5:
3. You've recently been looking for credit.
That shows up with no inquiry since:
August 23, 2015 Capital One Bank Usa
Actually think I can sort of debunk that entirely on FICO 04:
My inquiry distribution on EQ:
August 23, 2015 Capital One Bank Usa
July 31, 2015 Pentagon Fcu
July 10, 2015 Cbcinnovis
July 03, 2015 Chase Home Finance
June 03, 2015 Settlementone
May 30, 2015 Chase Home Finance
May 30, 2015 Cbcinnovis
Before that:
Verizon Inquiry Sep 15, 2014
Verizon Inquiry Jul 22, 2014
USAA Inquiry May 07, 2014
My Scores for a while, month/year:
4/15: 693
5/15: 700 (USAA inquiry came off, note, haven't interstitial pulls though I can if you want complete data, just the monthly monitoring from DCU).
6/15: 700
7/15: 700
8/15: 700
9/15: 700
10/15: 685 (awkward balances, actually not sure why the 8/15 and 9/15 ones weren't 693 from inquiry damage finally catching up to me)
11/15: 693
12/15: 694
694 since then. No AAOA shifts,
@Revelate wrote:@Anonymous if there were a penalty sub-90 day call it, it should show up in the reason codes?
EQ Beacon 5:
Revelate, I believe there likely is a short term penality for new accounts. Most likely inquiries either count or they don't. The two factors (inquiries & new accounts) should not have been lumped together.
It's specifically recent new accounts [not recent inquiries] that I suspect may impact score either directly or indirectly (influence on scorecard assignment). Here again, thickness/age of file may mute the impact of a single new account. There is a reason code/statement for "time since most recent account too short":
Note: Fico's reason codes represent a subset of what is considered in their scoring algorithms - so, no strict one to one relationship exists.
@TT: I think my posted historical scores sorta debunk the 6 month seasoning boundary as well that's been pontificated for a while (and I was one of those who pontificated it) at least for FICO 04. I know I didn't see one at 1 year.
I do agree that inquiries either count or they don't.