@Anonymous wrote:
For those of us who can't afford to pay down to 1% all of the time, I think it's a really good point. I'm curious to see if it works..if you barely have the money or are stressing out about paying down to 30% it would be cool if 30%-50% was all the same meaning no change in score. If an unexpected financial event comes up, and you can only pay down to 45%, maybe it won't be so stessful for that person. It would be cool to test.
If BobWang doesn't have the details and I know I certainly don't, then it's going to be difficult to FICO strategize concretely: you'd need a no or very thin file with toy limits to really test without a serious financial penalty. I don't know if BW's data got updated for FICO 8 but I haven't gone and looked at it recently.
I would submit though if you're carrying a significant revolving debt on a non-trivial interest rate, optimizing one's credit score is a secondary concern. Finances > FICO always.
ETA: a lot of the "experts" are absolutely wrong: if the data doesn't come from here, CB, or perhaps a few other locations, it's honestly not worth listening to... vast majority of humanity gets it wrong, and the marketing folks are about selling books, not what is actually accurate. Writing a book on FICO when I could probably summarize a non-trivial amount of the algorithm in 2 pages of text, money play, not benefit to humanity /shrug.
@Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of people missed my other comment. He's not saying 30% is neutral and your score will be the same from 1%-35% Obviously we all know it would dip. He's saying 1%-10% highest points. Still gaining points between 11%-29% although not as optimal.
When it gets to 30% it STAYS at the score you're at UNTIL you hit 51% then you will take a dip in the negative.
Not sure I understand your description. Is it anything like the depiction below?
Whacked post as just repeating myself. This is patently absurd from an implementation perspective, and it's just a technicolored yawn. 50% being neutral, just no, for so many reasons not including the main one: that's bad financial math, get that revolving debt paid off ASAP and stop bleeding cash.
@Anonymous wrote:
Sorry, I can't pull up your photo for some reason. Here's an EXAMPLE of scores.
Day 1 Utilization 9%, Credit Score 790
Day 2 Utilization 19% Credit Score 775
Day 3 Utilization 30% Credit Score 760
Day 4 Utilization 41% Credit Score 760
Day 5 Utilization 49% Credit Score 760
Day 6 Utilization 55% Credit Score 740
Day 7 Utilization 80% Credit Score 710
Below is an updated graph based on the data above:
It does point to some commonly held beliefs on threshold locations. Whether or not a particular profile sees an effect at every or any of these points is scorecard/profile dependent.
Some key points to consider:
1) The above data is relatively easy to generate if you have only one card. However, in that case card UT % = AG UT % so data is confounded.
2) If user had more than one card and this is for one specific card, results could be confounded with changes in AG UT % crossing thresholds.
3) If this data was from only one card reporting and the card had very low limit card (say $500) and the user had multiple high limit credit cards totaling say, $100k aggregate CL, then the data is rigorous with respect to isolating impact of UT associated with a single card ... for THAT USERS profile.
P.S. I took the liberty of showing step changes at 50% and 70% as they are commonly discussed thresholds. The one at 70% could be 75% and maybe even 80%. Regardless, I think it is a step change.