cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Need help with tricky combination

ntickrs
Established Member

Re: Need help with tricky combination

>> Take a look at this thread

@aj2121 That thread is super useful. Makes sense that EQ5 -- and I think in my case, where there are 10 cards, and 8 had some balance ... by dropping to 4 having a balance, and the rest at zero (real zero, not a small balance) may make a HUGE difference.
Message 21 of 33
ntickrs
Established Member

Re: Need help with tricky combination

@aj2121 


@ntickrs wrote:

Plot twist!

This morning I woke to find an email from Discover that, without asking, they had bumped my credit limit from $20,500 to $25,500. Everything else equal, I think this can only help on mortgage FICO Scores 5/4/2 because it would decrease utilization % ... right?

Correct, more utilization padding will only help. It may not give you a direct score improvment, but it might.



I believe score improvement here simply comes down to does the extra $5k credit push things below an individual or aggreggate threshold. If it does, score improvement. If it doesn't, then no score improvement.  But, either way, it's a good thing ... and even if not enough, makes it easier to push through to drop below the next thresshold.

Scenario 1 vs. 2: Two cards brought down to lowest possible thresholds (68.9% and 48.9%), and the aggregate goes below 60%.  

  • Does it matter if two cards are lower threshholds, if there are two other cards at higher threshholds?
  • I don't believe there's an aggregate thresshold at 60%, right?

Scenario 2 vs. 2A: Same but 2A leaves a card at 78%

  • Similar to last comparison -- effectively, for individual utilization %, is only the highest % considered? Or (aside from aggregate utilization, and presuming no card is more than 88.9%), does the individual utilization matter?

Individual utilization matters a lot more for F8 than mortgage scores, I would focus more on overall utilization and getting all cards below 90%, as there is definitely a penalty on mortgage scores and F8 for having >90% utilization on ANY card. 

Scenario 3 vs. 2/2A: Same as 2A except both Discover and Chase IHG left as is, or at 88.9% to avoid maxed out flag

  • Same question as last comparison, I believe.


Totally get that.  Let me ask in this way, if I can.  And, I realize that there may not be an answer.

Let say that, presuming that ALL cards are at 88.9%  -- to avoid max out flag -- or [true] zero balance.

Let's say that the aggreggate is going to be between 60-65% no matter what (cannot get to 48.9% threshold)

And let say that we cannot get two of the cards lower than 88.9% (biggest ones)

And let's say that we can move 1-2 cards to next thresshold or two down.

 

If you have:

4 cards at $0

2 cards at 88.9%

1 card at 78.14% << can go to 68.90%

1 card at 88.9% << can go to 68.90% or possibly 48.90%

 

Given that the aggregate won't change much, nor cross a thresshold -- do the blue items make sense for any of the FICO Scores 5/4/2?  Or because of the green ones, is it moot?


Thanks!

 

Message 22 of 33
HowDoesThisAllWork
Frequent Contributor

Re: Need help with tricky combination


@ntickrs wrote:

@aj2121 


@ntickrs wrote:

Plot twist!

This morning I woke to find an email from Discover that, without asking, they had bumped my credit limit from $20,500 to $25,500. Everything else equal, I think this can only help on mortgage FICO Scores 5/4/2 because it would decrease utilization % ... right?

Correct, more utilization padding will only help. It may not give you a direct score improvment, but it might.



I believe score improvement here simply comes down to does the extra $5k credit push things below an individual or aggreggate threshold. If it does, score improvement. If it doesn't, then no score improvement.  But, either way, it's a good thing ... and even if not enough, makes it easier to push through to drop below the next thresshold.

Scenario 1 vs. 2: Two cards brought down to lowest possible thresholds (68.9% and 48.9%), and the aggregate goes below 60%.  

  • Does it matter if two cards are lower threshholds, if there are two other cards at higher threshholds?
  • I don't believe there's an aggregate thresshold at 60%, right?

Scenario 2 vs. 2A: Same but 2A leaves a card at 78%

  • Similar to last comparison -- effectively, for individual utilization %, is only the highest % considered? Or (aside from aggregate utilization, and presuming no card is more than 88.9%), does the individual utilization matter?

Individual utilization matters a lot more for F8 than mortgage scores, I would focus more on overall utilization and getting all cards below 90%, as there is definitely a penalty on mortgage scores and F8 for having >90% utilization on ANY card. 

Scenario 3 vs. 2/2A: Same as 2A except both Discover and Chase IHG left as is, or at 88.9% to avoid maxed out flag

  • Same question as last comparison, I believe.


Totally get that.  Let me ask in this way, if I can.  And, I realize that there may not be an answer.

Let say that, presuming that ALL cards are at 88.9%  -- to avoid max out flag -- or [true] zero balance.

Let's say that the aggreggate is going to be between 60-65% no matter what (cannot get to 48.9% threshold)

And let say that we cannot get two of the cards lower than 88.9% (biggest ones)

And let's say that we can move 1-2 cards to next thresshold or two down.

 

If you have:

4 cards at $0

2 cards at 88.9%

1 card at 78.14% << can go to 68.90%

1 card at 88.9% << can go to 68.90% or possibly 48.90%

 

Given that the aggregate won't change much, nor cross a thresshold -- do the blue items make sense for any of the FICO Scores 5/4/2?  Or because of the green ones, is it moot?


Thanks!

 


@ntickrs 

 

Okay...finally back in this forum.  Apologies to all for the MIA status. Since getting the second COVID-19 Moderna vacination shot I have been exhausted....and I am an old dude with a s**t ton of energy (well, not for the last six weeks or so).


So, let's recap some things as this post has gone down lots and lots of avenues.  I am a fan of recapping...just so we are all on the same page and at the same starting point (if I missed something then it will be clear...via the recap).

 

1. In message 1 of this thread, OP listed out the 10 credit cards, the Credit Limit and the Current Balance of each credit card (with five of the 10 cards 'maxed out'), and that OP has some $35,000 to spend to improve Credit Score for, specifically, a Mortgage. And, specifically the Equifax Score. SIDEBAR: I think that the focus on the Equifax score is that this is the middle score - as things stand at this moment - and we all know that the middle score is what is used (typically).

 

2.  In message 7 of this thread, I came up with a plan (well, "plan" is a little strong here....I would like to say "suggested potential course of action" in place of "plan"). That course of action would get six of the 10 accounts to a $0 balance and would get the other four accounts down to 85% utilization.

 

3. @SouthJamaica  - in message 10 of this thread - suggested that for FICO 5/4/2 the important metric is "Accounts that have a balance, keep that balance under 50%"

 

4. @aj2121 - in message 19 of this thread - provided a link to a thread that references Equifax Mortgage scores being more sensitive than Experian and Transunion Mortgage scores to accounts with balances, the total number of accounts, and the ratio (revolvers-to-installment). Additionally, in message 20 of this thread, aj2121 suggested two things: getting all individual account utilizations below 90% and focussing on overall utilization.


Which leads us to the OPs questions in message 22.

 

At this point I think that my suggested course of action in message 7 is still VERY feasible. Fessible? Absolutely! But the "best" course of action? No clue! More no that below. We reduce the number of accounts with a balance from two down to six *BUT* the four accounts with a balance are at 85% utilization (which, naturally, exceeds the 50% utilization marker suggested by SouthJamaica).

 

I do not have any personal experience here to offer (as the last Mortgage I had was some 10+ years ago with the wife....who as become the ex-wife in the meantime...and we were both completely clueless when it came to credit back then) so I would suggest that OP has to make a decision based on what he knows | what has been provided here in the forum (keeping in mind the contraints of 'available resources').

 

We know that FICO 5/4/2 scores are VERY sensitive to:
1. Recent activity (for Hard Pulls and New Accounts....and that "recent" means "18 months" here)
2. Credit Utilization
3. Accounts with Balances

 

 

And this is where things are wide open for different plans of attack.

 

I personally believe SouthJamaica and his post about "accounts reporting under 50% utilization". So, is it better (and I am going to "make up the math" here....) to have six accounts reporting a $0 and four accounts reporting at 85% utilization or is it better to have four accounts reporting a $0 balance and six accounts reporting a 48% utilization? I do not know. Based on what SouthJamaica is reporting, it sounds as if the later is a better "situation".

 

I also did not do the math on my suggestion (six paid down to $0 and four reporting at 85%) to see if that is the best way to do things given aj2121's suggestion that overall utilization is overarching.

 

UGH! This is frustrating.

FICO8 Scores as of 2021 JULY 21:


FICO Auto 2/4/5 Scores as of 2021 JULY 21:


FICO Bankcard 2/4/5 Scores as of 2021 JULY 21:


FICO Mortgage 2/4/5 Scores as of 2021 JULY 21:


Starting Score: Exp 699
Current Score: Exp 699
Goal Score: Exp 750


Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Message 23 of 33
SouthJamaica
Super Contributor

Re: Need help with tricky combination


@HowDoesThisAllWork wrote:

@ntickrs wrote:

@aj2121 


@ntickrs wrote:

Plot twist!

This morning I woke to find an email from Discover that, without asking, they had bumped my credit limit from $20,500 to $25,500. Everything else equal, I think this can only help on mortgage FICO Scores 5/4/2 because it would decrease utilization % ... right?

Correct, more utilization padding will only help. It may not give you a direct score improvment, but it might.



I believe score improvement here simply comes down to does the extra $5k credit push things below an individual or aggreggate threshold. If it does, score improvement. If it doesn't, then no score improvement.  But, either way, it's a good thing ... and even if not enough, makes it easier to push through to drop below the next thresshold.

Scenario 1 vs. 2: Two cards brought down to lowest possible thresholds (68.9% and 48.9%), and the aggregate goes below 60%.  

  • Does it matter if two cards are lower threshholds, if there are two other cards at higher threshholds?
  • I don't believe there's an aggregate thresshold at 60%, right?

Scenario 2 vs. 2A: Same but 2A leaves a card at 78%

  • Similar to last comparison -- effectively, for individual utilization %, is only the highest % considered? Or (aside from aggregate utilization, and presuming no card is more than 88.9%), does the individual utilization matter?

Individual utilization matters a lot more for F8 than mortgage scores, I would focus more on overall utilization and getting all cards below 90%, as there is definitely a penalty on mortgage scores and F8 for having >90% utilization on ANY card. 

Scenario 3 vs. 2/2A: Same as 2A except both Discover and Chase IHG left as is, or at 88.9% to avoid maxed out flag

  • Same question as last comparison, I believe.


Totally get that.  Let me ask in this way, if I can.  And, I realize that there may not be an answer.

Let say that, presuming that ALL cards are at 88.9%  -- to avoid max out flag -- or [true] zero balance.

Let's say that the aggreggate is going to be between 60-65% no matter what (cannot get to 48.9% threshold)

And let say that we cannot get two of the cards lower than 88.9% (biggest ones)

And let's say that we can move 1-2 cards to next thresshold or two down.

 

If you have:

4 cards at $0

2 cards at 88.9%

1 card at 78.14% << can go to 68.90%

1 card at 88.9% << can go to 68.90% or possibly 48.90%

 

Given that the aggregate won't change much, nor cross a thresshold -- do the blue items make sense for any of the FICO Scores 5/4/2?  Or because of the green ones, is it moot?


Thanks!

 


@ntickrs 

 

Okay...finally back in this forum.  Apologies to all for the MIA status. Since getting the second COVID-19 Moderna vacination shot I have been exhausted....and I am an old dude with a s**t ton of energy (well, not for the last six weeks or so).


So, let's recap some things as this post has gone down lots and lots of avenues.  I am a fan of recapping...just so we are all on the same page and at the same starting point (if I missed something then it will be clear...via the recap).

 

1. In message 1 of this thread, OP listed out the 10 credit cards, the Credit Limit and the Current Balance of each credit card (with five of the 10 cards 'maxed out'), and that OP has some $35,000 to spend to improve Credit Score for, specifically, a Mortgage. And, specifically the Equifax Score. SIDEBAR: I think that the focus on the Equifax score is that this is the middle score - as things stand at this moment - and we all know that the middle score is what is used (typically).

 

2.  In message 7 of this thread, I came up with a plan (well, "plan" is a little strong here....I would like to say "suggested potential course of action" in place of "plan"). That course of action would get six of the 10 accounts to a $0 balance and would get the other four accounts down to 85% utilization.

 

3. @SouthJamaica  - in message 10 of this thread - suggested that for FICO 5/4/2 the important metric is "Accounts that have a balance, keep that balance under 50%"

 

4. @aj2121 - in message 19 of this thread - provided a link to a thread that references Equifax Mortgage scores being more sensitive than Experian and Transunion Mortgage scores to accounts with balances, the total number of accounts, and the ratio (revolvers-to-installment). Additionally, in message 20 of this thread, aj2121 suggested two things: getting all individual account utilizations below 90% and focussing on overall utilization.


Which leads us to the OPs questions in message 22.

 

At this point I think that my suggested course of action in message 7 is still VERY feasible. Fessible? Absolutely! But the "best" course of action? No clue! More no that below. We reduce the number of accounts with a balance from two down to six *BUT* the four accounts with a balance are at 85% utilization (which, naturally, exceeds the 50% utilization marker suggested by SouthJamaica).

 

I do not have any personal experience here to offer (as the last Mortgage I had was some 10+ years ago with the wife....who as become the ex-wife in the meantime...and we were both completely clueless when it came to credit back then) so I would suggest that OP has to make a decision based on what he knows | what has been provided here in the forum (keeping in mind the contraints of 'available resources').

 

We know that FICO 5/4/2 scores are VERY sensitive to:
1. Recent activity (for Hard Pulls and New Accounts....and that "recent" means "18 months" here)
2. Credit Utilization
3. Accounts with Balances

 

 

And this is where things are wide open for different plans of attack.

 

I personally believe SouthJamaica and his post about "accounts reporting under 50% utilization". So, is it better (and I am going to "make up the math" here....) to have six accounts reporting a $0 and four accounts reporting at 85% utilization or is it better to have four accounts reporting a $0 balance and six accounts reporting a 48% utilization? I do not know. Based on what SouthJamaica is reporting, it sounds as if the later is a better "situation".

 

I also did not do the math on my suggestion (six paid down to $0 and four reporting at 85%) to see if that is the best way to do things given aj2121's suggestion that overall utilization is overarching.

 

UGH! This is frustrating.


Just an added data point confirming what I have been saying about number of accounts with > 50% reported balance:

 

Today, 2 of my smaller accounts went over 50%.  EX FICO 8 lost 19 points and EX FICO 2 lost 12.


Total revolving limits 698000 (605000 reporting) FICO 8: EQ 721 TU 742 EX 715

Message 24 of 33
ntickrs
Established Member

Re: Need help with tricky combination

 

@SouthJamaica said

>> Just an added data point confirming what I have been saying about number of accounts with > 50% reported balance:

>> Today, 2 of my smaller accounts went over 50%. EX FICO 8 lost 19 points and EX FICO 2 lost 12.

 

Ok ... this may be the crux of the answer.  

 

Note: I'm not sure that I said this (or at least well) before.  In my case, there's limits as to not only how much I can pay down, but how much in each card's case -- in other words, just because one account can come down by $5k, that $5k may not be usable on another account.  In one sense, this is good as it limits the options better.

 

So, to clarify on @SouthJamaica 's comment above ... you went over 50% on two accounts -- were there other accounts with higher utilization? If no, then the to >50% would have given you a new max individual utilization. But, if yes, then you had the same max individual utilization but the individual utilizations ALSO mattered ...

 

THIS is the crux of my question...

- Presuming that there's not a change causing crossing an aggregate utilization % threshold

- Presuming there are one or more individual utilizations that are higher (e.g., 89%)

 

Then, the question is... Does the individual utilizations of other cards matter to cross the standard thresholds (e.g., 50/70/90%) so long as they are lower the other cards that are the max individual utilization for your cards?

 

@SouthJamaica I *think* you are saying YES! it matters!  Right?

Message 25 of 33
ntickrs
Established Member

Re: Need help with tricky combination

FYI: I'm seeing the first of the strategy work ... I believe Fico 2 just jumped 20 points. I'm collecting data and will post more on this later so that others can benefit.

 

In the meantime, plot twist #2 tonight ... looks like if I want when we the loan folks to pull the credit again (which I definitely do), there will be another hard inquiry ... their first one was on 10/08/2021. I need time to finish executing the payments and to request out of cycle reporting to 3B, and for the the 3B to actually do their thing.  I'm concerned about how another credit check will impact the scores.

 

Right now, including the one from Oct 8, I have 5 inquiries with these dates.

 

CREDCO, Mortgage Reporters, Inquiry date: Oct 8, 2021
US SM BUS ADMIN ODA, Federal Government, Inquiry date: Jun 23, 2021
Non-specific Finance Company, Inquiry date: Dec 11, 2020
US SM BUS ADMIN ODA, Federal Government, Inquiry date: Apr 19, 2020
SERVICE FIRST, Mortgage Reporters, Inquiry date: Apr 17, 2020

Credco would be the one that runs again.

The two SBA loans are part of the checks they do for any shareholder over 20% on a business taking a COVID loan.

The Service First loan was a new mortgage for a different property.

The Non-Specific one irritages the hell out of me as they didn't have permission, and I've not been able to get it removed.

 

With all that information, three questions:

1) Is there a date range that I can have them pull again that won't change my score?

2) if I miss that date range, what is the hit on MORTGAGE scores --

3) Do FICO 2 vs. 4 vs. 5 have differencent answers for #2?

 

Thanks!

 

Message 26 of 33
SouthJamaica
Super Contributor

Re: Need help with tricky combination


@ntickrs wrote:

 

@SouthJamaica said

>> Just an added data point confirming what I have been saying about number of accounts with > 50% reported balance:

>> Today, 2 of my smaller accounts went over 50%. EX FICO 8 lost 19 points and EX FICO 2 lost 12.

 

Ok ... this may be the crux of the answer.  

 

Note: I'm not sure that I said this (or at least well) before.  In my case, there's limits as to not only how much I can pay down, but how much in each card's case -- in other words, just because one account can come down by $5k, that $5k may not be usable on another account.  In one sense, this is good as it limits the options better.

 

So, to clarify on @SouthJamaica 's comment above ... you went over 50% on two accounts -- were there other accounts with higher utilization? If no, then the to >50% would have given you a new max individual utilization. But, if yes, then you had the same max individual utilization but the individual utilizations ALSO mattered ...

 

THIS is the crux of my question...

- Presuming that there's not a change causing crossing an aggregate utilization % threshold

- Presuming there are one or more individual utilizations that are higher (e.g., 89%)

 

Then, the question is... Does the individual utilizations of other cards matter to cross the standard thresholds (e.g., 50/70/90%) so long as they are lower the other cards that are the max individual utilization for your cards?

 

@SouthJamaica I *think* you are saying YES! it matters!  Right?


I'm saying that the more cards you have that are 50% or more, the worse.

 

I assume the same principle applies for accounts that are 30% or more, but my profile hasn't tested that yet.

 

I have no opinion on whether there are other thresholds in individual revolving account utilization, other than 30 and 50%.

 

I have no opinion on whether it matters what your highest utilization number is, compared to your other high utilization accounts.


Total revolving limits 698000 (605000 reporting) FICO 8: EQ 721 TU 742 EX 715

Message 27 of 33
ntickrs
Established Member

Re: Need help with tricky combination

@SouthJamaica Thank you so much! That extra clarity is helpful.

I wish I could time this out while pushing the score up -- but it looks like with the race to re-run the report, I won't be able to. I may see some additional differences (70% threshold at one point), and will document it.

Message 28 of 33
ntickrs
Established Member

Re: Need help with tricky combination

Quick update to @SouthJamaica , @HowDoesThisAllWork , @HeavenOhio , @SoonerSoldier33 and @FireMedic1 and anyone else interested.

When I started this 12 days ago, I was excited by the advice you all had given, but heeded the warnings of what to expect for speed -- and really dialed in on how to make things go faster. I was only concerned about the middle score of the 3B for Mortgage scores only.  

 

  EQ5 TU4 EX2
2021-10-12 705 753 700
2021-10-21 718 765 732
2021-10-23 752 767 761

 

As of yesterday, the impact has been substantial -- a middle score going from 705 to now 761 in just 12 days.  That difference will save $6000 in points on the loan.  Better yet, because Citibank really is a terrible bank -- we're still waiting for them to update, and I expect this to jump further this week when they get around to doing their job.

 

I've got a lot more data analysis to figure out what worked, but thought I would update you all given your kind help and time in advising.

 

Thanks!

Message 29 of 33
FireMedic1
Super Contributor

Re: Need help with tricky combination


@ntickrs wrote:

FYI: I'm seeing the first of the strategy work ... I believe Fico 2 just jumped 20 points. I'm collecting data and will post more on this later so that others can benefit.

 

In the meantime, plot twist #2 tonight ... looks like if I want when we the loan folks to pull the credit again (which I definitely do), there will be another hard inquiry ... their first one was on 10/08/2021. I need time to finish executing the payments and to request out of cycle reporting to 3B, and for the the 3B to actually do their thing.  I'm concerned about how another credit check will impact the scores.

 

Right now, including the one from Oct 8, I have 5 inquiries with these dates.

 

CREDCO, Mortgage Reporters, Inquiry date: Oct 8, 2021
US SM BUS ADMIN ODA, Federal Government, Inquiry date: Jun 23, 2021
Non-specific Finance Company, Inquiry date: Dec 11, 2020
US SM BUS ADMIN ODA, Federal Government, Inquiry date: Apr 19, 2020
SERVICE FIRST, Mortgage Reporters, Inquiry date: Apr 17, 2020

Credco would be the one that runs again.

The two SBA loans are part of the checks they do for any shareholder over 20% on a business taking a COVID loan.

The Service First loan was a new mortgage for a different property.

The Non-Specific one irritages the hell out of me as they didn't have permission, and I've not been able to get it removed.

 

With all that information, three questions:

1) Is there a date range that I can have them pull again that won't change my score?

2) if I miss that date range, what is the hit on MORTGAGE scores --

3) Do FICO 2 vs. 4 vs. 5 have differencent answers for #2?

 

Thanks!

 


You can get as many loan estimates as you would like and they won't hurt your credit, as long as you get them all within a 45-day window, according to the CFPB. And are coded for mortgage inqueries. Credit checks from lenders within that window will count it as a single inquiry on your credit report.






Homeowner since Sept 2020. My posts are JMHO. My siggy is not to brag. Just sharing my experiences after BK from learning here from rebuild to recovery from the @ 540's.
Message 30 of 33
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.