Negative Reason Codes still present at 850 score

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_Thumb

---

IV's data above is another example of being able to reach 850 with a recent account opening less than 12 months age. Clearly this profile has some buffer.

 

---

I would say it's a pretty significant buffer for him, as crossing from under to over 1 year AoYA seems to be worth around 15 points on average for clean/thick/aged files.

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Where do your 3 age of accounts factors currently sit?  On TU I'm at 12 months AoYA, 7.5 years AAoA, 17.x years AoOA.  I'm guessing your AoYA is > mine, as you aren't seeing the first reason statement that I am getting. 

---

AoYA is only 10 months

AAoA is 8y4m

AoOA is 21y9m

(Stats from myFICO report for May, which is not including AU accounts in the averages. WIth AUs, AAoA would be just over 9y, AoYA and AoOA would be unchanged.)

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As for the length of time accounts have been established, was your most recent account opened something other than a revolver?  I'm wondering why I'm getting the revolver statement but you're getting a slight variation of that. 

---

Yup! Car loan. Opened one in May 2017 and one in August 2017. Even before the earlier loan hit 12m, I was seeing 850s again... with HPs on all three CRAs.

As it currently stands, I still have scorable HPs left on EQ and EX. (Oddly, those are solid 850s, no recent bouncing around. TU, with no remaining scorable HPs since the beginning of this month, is still sometimes dropping a few points into the 84x range, based on when cards report.)

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wonder if you took down your number of accounts with balances if your #1 reason statement would be replaced with the same one I have, or with something entirely different. 

I'd speculate that #2 (length of time) would move up to #1, and the new #2 might become a variation on "remaining balance on installment loans too high" (current mortgage is still over 90%, and the new car loans are both at 75%).

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@iv wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Where do your 3 age of accounts factors currently sit?  On TU I'm at 12 months AoYA, 7.5 years AAoA, 17.x years AoOA.  I'm guessing your AoYA is > mine, as you aren't seeing the first reason statement that I am getting. 

---

AoYA is only 10 months

AAoA is 8y4m

AoOA is 21y9m

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As for the length of time accounts have been established, was your most recent account opened something other than a revolver?  I'm wondering why I'm getting the revolver statement but you're getting a slight variation of that. 

---

Yup! Car loan. Opened one in May 2017 and one in August 2017. Even before the earlier loan hit 12m, I was seeing 850s again... with HPs on all three CRAs.

As it currently stands, I still have scorable HPs left on EQ and EX. (Oddly, those are solid 850s, no recent bouncing around. TU, with no remaining scorable HPs since the beginning of this month, is still sometimes dropping a few points into the 84x range, based on when cards report.)

---

IV - I have observed the same behavior with TU. I saw TU dip to 845 once and 848 another time while EQ and EX stayed at 850. No INQ under 12 months on any CRAs either time.

Not 100% sure why TU dropped - Either TU's tweaks make Classic Fico 8 sensitive/more sensitive to card UT% at a lower threshold or the tweaks weight # cards reporting more heavily. I did get the following from Discover but, I had more cards reporting a couple other times with TU maintaining 850.

[Side note: EQ is hyper sensitive to # cards/accounts reporting on Fico 04, TU is somewhat sensitive while EX is rather muted. In contrast, based on Fico 8, TU might be a bit more sensitive to # accounts than EQ while EX puts minimal weight on # accounts]

Question for IV: Can you determine if your AU accounts reported a zero balance when TU score dropped?

AoYA = 80 months, AAoA = 19 years, AoOA = 34 years

[iv]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

IV - I have observed the same behavior with TU. I saw TU dip to 845 once and 848 another time while EQ and EX stayed at 850. No INQ under 12 months on any CRAs either time.

Question for IV: Can you determine if your AU accounts reported a zero balance when TU score dropped?

All AU accounts (three) were reporting a zero balance the most recent time TU dropped (850->844).

Two of those accounts are Chase, and they report $0 right after PIF, so they report zeros most of the time.

At the time of that drop, non-AU cards had 5 of 6 reporting balances.

(PIF, of course, but after statement cut. No real need for me to micro-manage reporting...)

I haven't done any recent controlled tests to determine if AU accounts are actually being factored into FICO 8 or 9 for my reports, and (oddly?), the drop happened to align time-wise with going from 5/6 + 1/3AU to 5/6 + 0/3AU... so no obvious reason there.

For what it's worth, since myFICO happens to supply reason codes all the way up to 849 for TU (and only TU) in the alerts, these are the reasons from the most recent drop:

• Too many accounts with balances.
• Length of time accounts have been established.
• Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high.

...which lines up pretty well with my guess earlier in the thread (about what codes would report if I went AZEO).

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

[Side note: EQ is hyper sensitive to # cards/accounts reporting on Fico 04, TU is somewhat sensitive while EX is rather muted. In contrast, based on Fico 8, TU might be a bit more sensitive to # accounts than EQ while EX puts minimal weight on # accounts]

There are definitely per-CRA differences in the models, although FICO 8 is far more consistent than older models.

I've never seen more than 799 on TU4, and it's currently "only" at 770, while EQ5 (nominally the same basic model) is at 806!

[Anonymous]

TT, interesting that you saw a negative reason statement through Discover with your score where it was.  I've never seen one with my scores at anything > 800.  I wonder why that is?

[Thomas_Thumb]

BBS - I had to go to "table view" from the default "graph view" to see the reason statements. Also, Discover changed their display format late last year. You now have to click on "see more" while in table format. This generates a pop up. The negative reason statement used to be embedded in the table. Since going to the pop up Discover may have changed their Fico score threshold for negative reason statements.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

 wrote:

---

 wrote:

IV - I have observed the same behavior with TU. I saw TU dip to 845 once and 848 another time while EQ and EX stayed at 850. No INQ under 12 months on any CRAs either time.

Question for IV: Can you determine if your AU accounts reported a zero balance when TU score dropped?

All AU accounts (three) were reporting a zero balance the most recent time TU dropped (850->844).

Two of those accounts are Chase, and they report $0 right after PIF, so they report zeros most of the time.

At the time of that drop, non-AU cards had 5 of 6 reporting balances.

(PIF, of course, but after statement cut. No real need for me to micro-manage reporting...)

I haven't done any recent controlled tests to determine if AU accounts are actually being factored into FICO 8 or 9 for my reports, and (oddly?), the drop happened to align time-wise with going from 5/6 + 1/3AU to 5/6 + 0/3AU... so no obvious reason there.

For what it's worth, since myFICO happens to supply reason codes all the way up to 849 for TU (and only TU) in the alerts, these are the reasons from the most recent drop:

• Too many accounts with balances.
• Length of time accounts have been established.
• Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high.

...which lines up pretty well with my guess earlier in the thread (about what codes would report if I went AZEO).

There are definintly per-CRA differences in the models, although FICO 8 is far mor consistent than the older models.

IV - you will find that FICO 8 is far less consistent than either FICO 9 or Vantage Score 3.0. FICO 8 still has substantial customization.

---

A handful of posters have noted seeing a score drop on Fico 8 when all their AU cards report zero. This may be specific to TU. So, that's why I asked. My AU card does not factor into utilization on FICO 8 but, I also did note a score drop with the AU card reporting zero - my aggregate UT was 2% and personal cards reporting were all single digit UT%. The only other possible explanation I can think of is a "relatively high" prior balance on the AU card (spiked over 25%) along with a late PIF 5 days past the due date. Score drop sequence was: 850 =>848=>845=>850.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

BBS - I had to go to "table view" from the default "graph view" to see the reason statements. Also, Discover changed their display format late last year. You now have to click on "see more" while in table format. This generates a pop up. The negative reason statement used to be embedded in the table. Since going to the pop up Discover may have changed their Fico score threshold for negative reason statements.

---

I get the same reason statements in graph view without the popup.

[Thomas_Thumb]

SJ - So do I since the change. With the old format views were different. That's why I think Discover may have changed their threshold for negative reason statements. [52 open accounts! How do you manage them all?]

Anyone seeing negative reason statements on Discover with scores above 800 since the re-format? If so at what score?

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

SJ - So do I since the change. With the old format views were different. That's why I think Discover may have changed their threshold for negative reason statements. [52 open accounts! How do you manage them all?]

Anyone seeing negative reason statements on Discover with scores above 800 since the re-format? If so at what score?

---

I don't have 52 open accounts Just 28. [correction: 34 open accounts, of which 28 report]