Negative Reason Codes still present at 850 score

[Thomas_Thumb]

My mistake - I thought the summary total was open accounts only .

My Discover summary shows 7 accounts (5 personal cards, one AU card and a mortgage). I have 7 open accounts and 2 closed ones ... so my conclusion was Discover is only displaying open accounts.

[Anonymous]

In Discover when I go under the scorecard and "table view" / "see more" all I see are a couple of positive statements and no negative reason statements.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

My mistake - I thought the summary total was open accounts only .

My Discover summary shows 7 accounts (5 personal cards, one AU card and a mortgage). I have 7 open accounts and 2 closed ones ... so my conclusion was Discover is only displaying open accounts.

---

Interesting. Are you 100% sure that the 2 being included are the AU card and the mortgage?

[iv]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

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.

---

FICO 8 was the first FICO model that significantly reduced the per-CRA differences - compared to the variations in the older models, FICO 8 variation is tiny.  I haven't observed FICO 9 being noticeably more consistent than FICO 8.

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

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. 

---

Interesting. And strange - not clear what logic that would be based on. But yes, that does happen to match up with my last drop.

I'll keep an eye on it in the future.

[Thomas_Thumb]

I have noticed a step change improvement in consistency among the three CRAs with F9 compared to F8. Pasted below is a summary table I shared in another thread last year. I also recall F9 literature mentioning less variability among CRAs as a goal/outcome of the Fico 9 model.

Month	BC EQ F8	BC TU F8	BC EX F8	BC F8 Range
02/14/16	874	880	895	21
03/25/16	882	899	898	17
07/23/16	881	889	900	19
08/06/16	876	886	892	16
10/30/16	881	873	897	24
03/25/17	887	899	900	13
Month	BC EQ F9	BC TU F9	BC EX F9	BC F9 Range
02/14/16	867	869	873	6
03/25/16	877	879	878	2
07/23/16	873	874	879	6
08/06/16	858	863	862	5
10/30/16	873	865	874	9
03/25/17	876	879	879	3

Added below for comparison are scores for the older Fico Bankcard version(s). Note the larger spread. Unfortunately no BC EX Fico 04 (only EX BC Fico 98).

Month	BC EQ 04	BC TU 04	BC EX 98	BC Range
02/14/16	770	837	853	83
03/25/16	826	858	862	36
07/23/16	801	850	836	49
08/06/16	825	850	842	25
10/30/16	822	858	859	37
03/25/17	822	858	864	42

[Anonymous]

I would say for sure FICO 9 is much less variable across the bureaus than FICO 8 based on the data above for sure.

TT, did you make a similar table or find similar data with your Classic scores compared to your BC scores?

[Thomas_Thumb]

Really not much to look at with Classic Fico 8 or Classic Fico 9

Month	EQ F8	TU F8	EX F8	F8 Range
02/14/16	850	850	850	0
03/25/16	850	850	850	0
07/23/16	850	850	850	0
08/06/16	850	850	850	0
10/30/16	850	845	850	5
03/25/17	850	850	850	0
Month	EQ F9	TU F9	EX F9	F9 Range
02/14/16	850	850	850	0
03/25/16	850	850	850	0
07/23/16	850	850	850	0
08/06/16	850	850	850	0
10/30/16	850	850	850	0
03/25/17	850	850	850	0

 

Add: For comparison below are Classic Fico 04 scores (with EX04, not EX 98). As IV stated above, the older Fico mortgage models allow for greater customization by CRAs. Thus the greater spread in scores. Also no buffers to mask impact.

Month	EQ F04	TU F04	EX F04	F04 Range
02/14/16	764	812	811	48
03/25/16	809	823	830	21
07/23/16	787	815	830	43
08/06/16	809	815	830	21
10/30/16	804	823	830	26
03/25/17	804	823	830	26

[Anonymous]

LOL, gotta love the FICO 8 buffer!