Least no. of accts w/bal and rec neg reason code?

[Anonymous]

What is the least number of accounts with balances that you've had and still received the "too many accounts with balances" negative reason statement?

Also, since percentage may play a role in this, listing your total number of accounts may be useful.

I currently have 4 of 10 accounts with balances, 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans (mortgage, auto) and receive the reason code referenced. One of the revolvers is awaiting a $0 balance to report and one of my installment loans (auto) should be reporting as closed/PIF. I should be at 3 of 10 accounts with balances first, then 2 of 9. I'm curious if at 3 of 10 the statement goes away. I'd certainly believe it would be gone at 2 of 9, as with 1 revolver with a reported balance and 1 open installment loan things are ideal FICO wise.

Anyway, data points on this negative reason statement are welcomed!

[HeavenOhio]

I have six cards and a gas/electric bill reporting. I get the reason code on many of my scores when one card reports a positive balance.

[Anonymous]

See, that's interesting.  We all know that FICO is a fan of a revolving balance being reported and that if you didn't have a revolver with a reported balance you'd get the "no revolving credit use" code, which definitely imposes a score hit.

I guess the question here, then, is if 1 is too many and 0 is too few, what is FICO after?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymouswrote:
What is the least number of accounts with balances that you've had and still received the "too many accounts with balances" negative reason statement?

Also, since percentage may play a role in this, listing your total number of accounts may be useful.

I currently have 4 of 10 accounts with balances, 2 revolvers and 2 installment loans (mortgage, auto) and receive the reason code referenced. One of the revolvers is awaiting a $0 balance to report and one of my installment loans (auto) should be reporting as closed/PIF. I should be at 3 of 10 accounts with balances first, then 2 of 9. I'm curious if at 3 of 10 the statement goes away. I'd certainly believe it would be gone at 2 of 9, as with 1 revolver with a reported balance and 1 open installment loan things are ideal FICO wise.

Anyway, data points on this negative reason statement are welcomed!

---

I have a total of seven open accounts including a mortgage and AU card. I recall receiving that code with a total of 4 accounts (including mortgage and AU card) with balances on my Fico 8 bankcard summary from Citi. I have been under the impression that more than 3 accounts with balances likely trigger that this particular statement. I was down to 3 with balances once and my EQ bankcard score spiked to 892. However, I didnot look at my Citi Fico reason statements at that time and Citi doesnot archive historical reason statements.

Look forward to your updates.

[Anonymous]

While my upcoming data points may be useful to some, the one provided by HO above almost makes others irrelevant to a degree, as if just 1 account with a balance can generate that reason statement, certainly any number greater than 1 (2, 3, etc.) would have the potential to do the same.

[Thomas_Thumb]

I would say it makes other profile data points more important, certainly not less. 

[Anonymous]

How so, as it essentially means that any non-zero number of accounts with balances can generate that statement?

[Thomas_Thumb]

Essentially you have one data point from one profile on a TBD scorecard and I would not draw any generalized conclusions as such. It is critical to get data from multiple sources to determine if generalizations can be applied or if the data represents an outlier. One data point means very little as it lacks substantiation from multiple sources.

If you get multiple posters stating they receive such a statement with one account only reporting a balance, then you have substantiation. Furthermore, if other data points contradict the initial finding then results are either conditional by scorecard/profile or # accounts reporting used for the reason statement somehow differs from the report summary. Assuming the difference in results is conditional, what is the criteria for differentiation? 

If everyone can be tagged with "too many accounts with balances" while having only one account reporting a balance, the reason statement truely has no value and would not have been created - IMO. So, I'm most interested in finding out if the statement disappears for someone that has it and if so under what condition.

[Anonymous]

I gotcha.  So, perhaps HO is an outlier example.  HO, if you have time can you provide some of your profile data to go along with the data point of receiving the "too many accounts with balances" reason statement with just 1 account with a balance?  As TT suggests, it could be something scorecard or profile specific here that you have going on.

[NRB525]

TT’s cautions are important. 

I will add that trying to read ANY meaning into any particular FICO Reason Code MUST include the other Reason Codes the cardholder is presented with. The reason being, they have to tag you with something, anything. Often the codes are seeming random, fillers. “Too Many Balances” when someone has one balance, seems quite likely to be one of those meaningless fillers. 

When I bother to check my TU reasons as they evolve, there is a consistent shifting of their rank as things like size of balances, number of reporting cards, individual balances, apps and such move up and down. I suggest anyone wanting to understand their reason codes needs to take time to watch the list change before drawing any conclusions. 

So, BBS, and everyone else presenting “Too Many Balances” please also list out your other Reason Codes. If all those codes are softball, the “Too Many Balances” is filler.