@racer-x wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:
@racer-x wrote:zigzag - Great lst post...a lot of time and effort put into it. You laid out in a very detailed display what many, many of us have been seeing.
Lately, the myFICO mods, super gurus, and estabished guestimators have been avoiding this section of the forum. They really can't defend the inaccuracies any longer.
Eric said what many of them say...something else changed, etc...I say to that, if I get an alert for a 58 pt drop because of a $90 balance reporting, and I don't see brand new 90 day lates or a judgement or a tax lien show up on my reports, then I call B S to that argument. The argument that maybe a simple change in an accouunt not being as new as the day before could cause such a drop is lunacy.
They FICO system is screwed up now. Not sure what they're doing.
I had a 6 pt increase alert the other day on EX for this reason: High revolving account utilization 82%.
In the same week, I had 2 new INQ's and a new balance of $154 report, that was previously $0.
It's getting to the point where you're afraid to make any changes at all. Don't increase/decrease balances. Don't change utiiization. Don't get new accts. Don't buy a house. Don't buy a new car even though your daily driver might be on blocks in the backyard. Don't attempt to get out of debt.
Maybe we should all just start living the Dave Ramsey life.
Weren't there other things in the recent events which were pushing your score down immediately prior to this?
The FICO score model is complex, and so new inputs can change the dynamic of how the past history is interpreted. That 6 point increase is probably just a stabilization after a rough patch of score decreases.
In OP situation, I think there is other information not yet presented. True, without seeing all the details none of us can explain certain score changes. The usual situation here, however, is that these posts start out with one trigger (or a short list as in OP situation) and then there is a slow reveal until we get to the real reason that may not be this week, may not have been listed in the reason for change, but is driving the score changes nonetheless.
When I paid $20k in cc debt a month and half ago, my scores went back up 30 pts to where they were..low 700's.Since then, I had a new balance report, 4 new INQ's (2 ex, 1 tu, 1eq), and 82% utilization on the USuck account. All negative factors that should have decreased my scores, but instead they increased.I am waiting for a new $10k CC to report, and a $8500 SP CLI....anxious to see what kinda havoc that'll play.I understand your argument that sometimes 'full disclosure' of an op's file isn't always given at the onset. But there are just as many or more, where it's easy to see that there is no justification for the eratic score changes.I love it when i get an alert saying 'your score has changed - 693 to 690.' ????? umkay, thanks for that detailed alert. Hey, did ya also know that water is wet? (not talking to you directly CLD MASTER, in a props to you kinda way)
Another opinion I have about FICO scoring is, when there are major shocks to the information in the credit report, that causes the short term score to go a little loopy. After the shock fades a bit, then the scores tend to build this new set of information into a new normal, still primarily influenced by the payment history in the file. For example, my opinion of the idea of keeping all balances at zero, one reporting is, that becomes a stabilized pattern of information for FICO to work with. When one of those zeroed accounts gets a new balance, even a small balance, it is a shock to the model, and the cardholder will report that their score dropped X points and immediately blame the multiple cards reporting, then try to quickly adjust back. Over time, however, the FICO model probably absorbs this (say the cardholder went from 1 to 2 cards reporting) and would recover soon enough, in a couple of months, to nearly the same level. But most cardholders here don't have that kind of patience when they think they can get those X points right back by doing something else.
So, in your file, with all the moving pieces, you could argue that FICO is still recovering and making adjustments to fold all that information into your scores. Minor balance increases (as opposed to new balances reporting from prior zero balances) are a minor issue at that point. The score could have been planning to go up anyway when the 82% utilization reported, as a continuation of the $30k pay down, but the utilization might have keep that second set of increases reduced. With so many moving parts it's all speculation, but we do expect some negative impact from increased utilization. What I'm thinking is, you did get a negative effect from the 82% util reporting, but it was hidden in another catch up reason that resulted in an increase in scores for the other reasons.
In my opinion, the defense that "scoring models are complicated so you can't fully understand it", is diverting the issue. myFico is the one that is indicating that there is indeed a single and direct cause-effect relationship. Look at their alerts. They list the cause, and only one cause, and then list the effect. If this is not the case, then they shouldn't report it as such.
Second, these changes are occuring within days of each other, which greatly reduces the probability that there a lot of "other things" going on. The longer the time period between reporting, the greater the chance of multiple events occuring that could be affecting the score...and vice versa.
But again, what I'm most frustrated with is that it is myFico stating the cause - effect relationship behind each event and it appears to be totally irrational results based on their guidelines of the FICO model. IF there are multiple events occuring in these short spans of time, why show the one event that correlates the least to the score change? E.g. "You have a new Inquiry" +6 points. If your score changed +6 points that day, and it was due to something else, then it would make sense to list the event that was the primary driver of the score change (and definitely don't list the even that goes totally in the opposite direction of what is expected).
What they are doing today is akin to:
ALERT: The human life expectancy age increased 10 years since 1950
CAUSE: McDonalds Opened in 1950
Many things happened between 1950 and today, McDonald's opening being one (note I have not actually checked the dates of when McDonald's first opened, this is just an anology). But that event is definitely NOT the one that was responsible for the increased life expectancy age. I'm sure most would find somone purporting such cause and effect claims to be rediculous and would quickly lose faith in them.
And what else is ridiculous:
ALERT: Your score increased 6 points today!
CAUSE: You have a new inquiry!
myFico is an entity that is supposed to be THE authority, but they are undermining their own credibility with their style of reporting alerts/score changes. Additionally, and I'm no lawyer, but it seems feasible that they may also be opening themselves up to liability as they are charging for their Score Watch service, which most people would purchase because they want to understand the cause and effect relationship of their credit related actions and consider myFico an authority. As such they'd have a fiduciary responsibility to provide accurate information. If somene sees that a new inquiry increases their score by 6 points, they may take that as they should continue to rack up inquiries. Then their credit is damaged and they sustain some loss as a result....it could result in a lawsuit or even a class action lawsuit. Could this happen? I don't know, but does it seem feasible...I think so. But again, I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night 
I think myFico has the opportunity to provide a great service. Credit scores are extremely important in our society and their service could really help the average consumer to better understand the drivers behind their score. But the way they are executing their service today is taking things in the opposite direction, causing even more confusion and less understanding. The fact that they have a monopoly on the scoring system of choice for creditors means they are in a position of incredible power. Vantage and other alternate models are trying to chip away at them...if they lose too much credibility, at some point, their monopoly may be no more.
@Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, the defense that "scoring models are complicated so you can't fully understand it", is diverting the issue. myFico is the one that is indicating that there is indeed a single and direct cause-effect relationship. Look at their alerts. They list the cause, and only one cause, and then list the effect. If this is not the case, then they shouldn't report it as such.
Second, these changes are occuring within days of each other, which greatly reduces the probability that there a lot of "other things" going on. The longer the time period between reporting, the greater the chance of multiple events occuring that could be affecting the score...and vice versa.
But again, what I'm most frustrated with is that it is myFico stating the cause - effect relationship behind each event and it appears to be totally irrational results based on their guidelines of the FICO model. IF there are multiple events occuring in these short spans of time, why show the one event that correlates the least to the score change? E.g. "You have a new Inquiry" +6 points. If your score changed +6 points that day, and it was due to something else, then it would make sense to list the event that was the primary driver of the score change (and definitely don't list the even that goes totally in the opposite direction of what is expected).
What they are doing today is akin to:
ALERT: The human life expectancy age increased 10 years since 1950
CAUSE: McDonalds Opened in 1950
Many things happened between 1950 and today, McDonald's opening being one (note I have not actually checked the dates of when McDonald's first opened, this is just an anology). But that event is definitely NOT the one that was responsible for the increased life expectancy age. I'm sure most would find somone purporting such cause and effect claims to be rediculous and would quickly lose faith in them.
And what else is ridiculous:
ALERT: Your score increased 6 points today!
CAUSE: You have a new inquiry!
myFico is an entity that is supposed to be THE authority, but they are undermining their own credibility with their style of reporting alerts/score changes. Additionally, and I'm no lawyer, but it seems feasible that they may also be opening themselves up to liability as they are charging for their Score Watch service, which most people would purchase because they want to understand the cause and effect relationship of their credit related actions and consider myFico an authority. As such they'd have a fiduciary responsibility to provide accurate information. If somene sees that a new inquiry increases their score by 6 points, they may take that as they should continue to rack up inquiries. Then their credit is damaged and they sustain some loss as a result....it could result in a lawsuit or even a class action lawsuit. Could this happen? I don't know, but does it seem feasible...I think so. But again, I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night
I think myFico has the opportunity to provide a great service. Credit scores are extremely important in our society and their service could really help the average consumer to better understand the drivers behind their score. But the way they are executing their service today is taking things in the opposite direction, causing even more confusion and less understanding. The fact that they have a monopoly on the scoring system of choice for creditors means they are in a position of incredible power. Vantage and other alternate models are trying to chip away at them...if they lose too much credibility, at some point, their monopoly may be no more.
kudos x 1000....what he said.
If CK and Vantage continue to match my myFico scores, it's gonna be bye bye bye my my myfico.
@Anonymous wrote:In the end, I just want to know how credit report changes affect my score so I can then do the right things to improve it. But with wonky reporting like this, it's like trying to navigate by compass in a room full of magnets.
Honestly, it is very hard to know precisely. And I like it that way because it prevents the scoring system from being manipulated and exploited. The advice is just focus on doing the right things and your score will improve. And it sounds like you are doing the right things. Keep on trucking!
@Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, the defense that "scoring models are complicated so you can't fully understand it", is diverting the issue. myFico is the one that is indicating that there is indeed a single and direct cause-effect relationship. Look at their alerts. They list the cause, and only one cause, and then list the effect. If this is not the case, then they shouldn't report it as such.
Can you point out to me where MyFICO says something is the cause and something else is the effect? Because this is not the way their monitoring services work. I explained this here: http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/I-DON-T-UNDERSTAND/td-p/3838526
OP could you clarify please your disputes and any lates? List your CC and amounts, amounts typically reported?
You, along with everyone else, has a lot of information in your credit file. That information is complex. If you have disputes or lates anywhere in your file, that is a major effect on the scoring results. The information does not come in with future understanding, it gets included in the scoring model in little bits. That makes for noise in the scoring system.
There is no direct cause and effect in FICO scores for any one action/event in isolation of the rest of the CR. People would like to see that, but that is not how this scoring works and it would be impossible to design it that way because of the unique history of each person's own file.
@Anonymous wrote:What are the effects of disputes? And what types of disputes.
For example, I had a lender tell me that I had too many accounts that had the "Consumer disputes this account" notation on them (which results when you DV an account with the OC) and that those trade lines essentially get removed from the FICO scoring model. As such, I'd have to remove those comments. I did do that and I did receive alerts that noted those comment changes, but they did not have any score change as a result.
Then there are also TLs that I have disputed with the CRAs direclty. In speaking with the CRAs, they state that those types of disputed accounts do not have any impact on your score and that lenders don't have any visibility to those accounts that are being disputed until the results then come back and either change or don't change your file.
So in the first example, is what I have been told true? Are original OC accounts with disputed comments removed from the scoring model? I did attempt to have those comments removed by calling the CRAs and I told them that they are not longer in dispute. I think they removed some but not all of the dispute comments. Would this then be the real reason my score dropped so much? These are TLs that have had no activity for 3 - 4 years, so rather old...does this dispute comment change "re-age" the effect?
If so, would it help to re-DV them to add those comments back? The problem is that I was originally approved for a loan and had a 667 middle score. Now we are getting close to close and the lender re-pulled and I now have a 574....as a result, the terms have changed dramatically and I'd need to put another 10% down, which I don't have. The result of which would be losing my $20k earnest money and having to scramble to find some new rental home to rent in a short period of time.
OTher background. On my open active revolving I have about $9k of credit lines with balances between $0 and $300. I have several revolving charge offs from 3.5 years ago. No negatives for 3+ years.
Some of the attributes of the TLs are removed from Fico scoring while marked in dispute not all. Removing the dispute remarks from a few while others remain may not result in a score change. A mortgage lender will demand all those dispute comments be removed so they can get a true Fico on you and as you have discovered its changing the terms of your loan. You want to pay off all your revoving credit lines except for 1 that you will let report 1-9% of its individual CL, this is the fastest way to boost Fico score.
