Number of CC's..

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

PS to Revelate.  My memory is that there was in your case something wonky with this reason statement ("too many").  Namely that you had 29 accounts in January, pulled your scores later, and this reason statement did not appear.  Then later in the year (late summer?) the reason statement appeared (but with the total number remaining 29).  I think that this might have led you to speculate that even in TU FICO 04 the "29 = too many" might be a consideration only in a few scorecards -- and that perhaps you had been rebucketed.

Is that right?

---

It appears to have only shown up this time after my 30D late passed the two year mark, was something else weird then but I'd have to go dig it up but yeah given I got a score drop on the aging and a brand spanking new reason code in #1 spot, rebucket = yes.

I don't recall having it before that, double-checked my TU report from earlier in the year and nothing doing either.  Pretty certain it doesn't show up in dirty scorecards at all, and may not on all clean(ish) scorecards either.

Could be on open ones, 20 open, 9 closed on TU for reference.  Tempted to pare down some cards, seeing this reason code may get me to pull the trigger.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Did the reason statement show up on a Classic Fico, Industry enhanced version or both? Per the below excerpt from a 2013 publication, number of bank/national or other revolving accounts is not part of Classic TU Fico but is for EQ and EX. What CRA displayed this reason statement?

[Revelate]

TU Only, all FICO 04 models.  Incidently this is the only one with any late on it (10/15 30D which no longer shows up in reason codes) and the only one without a CFA.

TU 04 Classic: #1

TU 04 Auto: #2

TU 04 Bankcard: #1

I don't see it on the other bureaus under any model (or anything else on TU for that matter).  Admittedly I have other things wrong on those reports, CFA and new accounts factor on both EX and EQ along with the short history variations which I'm stuck with for a while; have to see when the accounts hit the 1 year mark maybe it will show up more prominently in other bureaus too.

That chart though, I know there's differences in reason codes between 04 and 8, I'm a little suspicious of it when it's just a blanket post that breaks out NextGen (in the first column I might add), for all I know those are the FICO 96/98 flavors even if the early mortgage score suggests FICO 04.  Hard to say.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

TU Only, all FICO 04 models.  Incidently this is the only one with any late on it (10/15 30D which no longer shows up in reason codes) and the only one without a CFA.

TU 04 Classic: #1

TU 04 Auto: #2

TU 04 Bankcard: #1

I don't see it on the other bureaus under any model (or anything else on TU for that matter).  Admittedly I have other things wrong on those reports, CFA and new accounts factor on both EX and EQ along with the short history variations which I'm stuck with for a while; have to see when the accounts hit the 1 year mark maybe it will show up more prominently in other bureaus too.

That chart though, I know there's differences in reason codes between 04 and 8, I'm a little suspicious of it when it's just a blanket post that breaks out NextGen (in the first column I might add), for all I know those are the FICO 96/98 flavors even if the early mortgage score suggests FICO 04.  Hard to say.

---

Below is a paste from the cover page associated with nthe above excerpt. I provided a link to this previously in another thread - which you reviewed at the time. I think the link may have been removed. The copy of the pdf I saved from the link says "secured".

Below is a link to a list of reason codes direct from TU from 2009 which certainly should include Fico 04 and a link to the above stated to be from Fair Isaac in 2013.

https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/376e8bb8/files/uploaded/FICO%20Reason%20Codes.pdf

Below is a link to Fico reason codes as presented in a Credco pdf

https://www.credco.com/assets/pdfs/datasheets/FICO-booklet.pdf

Here's one from Experian

https://www.figfcu.com/documents/fico/FICO%C2%AE%20Score%20Factors%20Guide%20-%20Experian.pdf

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Carloscda40 wrote:

I've noticed that some have like 8+ cards.

Now wouldn't that get a negative look from credit bureaus?

Also looking at credit karma it says one of the things affecting my credit is that I only hav 6 open accounts. Where as 11+ would be in the positive?

---

Credit Karma gives a very false impression... that more is better. In the FICO world a person can have a perfect score with 3 credit cards or with 30 or with 100.

[Anonymous]

---

@Carloscda40 wrote:

Also looking at credit karma it says one of the things affecting my credit is that I only hav 6 open accounts. Where as 11+ would be in the positive?

---

Keep in mind that this is just CK's fluff software and part of their MO is to get members to sign up for more credit cards, loans etc.  VS 3.0 isn't going to award more points (or impose a lesser penalty) once someone reaches 11 accounts.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The other thing to consider is that while 3 cards and 1 installment seems to be the magic number for points, having more cards will help solidify the average age of accounts. I wish I knew the magic number of accounts to have, for now I am just focusing on cards tailored to my spending habits so I can gain the most rewards. 

---

You're not going to have an issue by reward chasing at all, except for the ding you get from inquiries (mostly irrelevant) and the ding from age of newest account scorecard (also mostly irrelevant).  Get as much cash back from the banks as you can.  Get every penny.  If it means a 780 FICO versus an 850, who cares, get those pennies and retire earlier.

Leaving even 10 cents on the table just so you can see 850 is kinda dumb in my opinion.  If you can qualify for a better category rewards card, just get it.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

You're not going to have an issue by reward chasing at all, except for the ding you get from inquiries (mostly irrelevant) and the ding from age of newest account scorecard (also mostly irrelevant).  Get as much cash back from the banks as you can.  Get every penny.  If it means a 780 FICO versus an 850, who cares, get those pennies and retire earlier.

---

ABCD, question for you. You suggest that AoYA is "mostly irrelevant" - do you have an opinion as to the quantification of this?  Basically if you have two otherwise equal profiles, let's say they're both thick/aged except one hasn't opened any new accounts in 4 years (AoYA 4 years) where someone else just had a new account land on their report last week.  I'm curious what the difference could be with score card reassignment here.

I'd love to hear from someone with an 850 score (or close enough to it to suggest the best bucket) that added a new account dropping their AoYA from several years or more down to 0 and see what their scoring impact was.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

You're not going to have an issue by reward chasing at all, except for the ding you get from inquiries (mostly irrelevant) and the ding from age of newest account scorecard (also mostly irrelevant).  Get as much cash back from the banks as you can.  Get every penny.  If it means a 780 FICO versus an 850, who cares, get those pennies and retire earlier.

---

ABCD, question for you. You suggest that AoYA is "mostly irrelevant" - do you have an opinion as to the quantification of this?  Basically if you have two otherwise equal profiles, let's say they're both thick/aged except one hasn't opened any new accounts in 4 years (AoYA 4 years) where someone else just had a new account land on their report last week.  I'm curious what the difference could be with score card reassignment here.

I'd love to hear from someone with an 850 score (or close enough to it to suggest the best bucket) that added a new account dropping their AoYA from several years or more down to 0 and see what their scoring impact was.

---

A person with an 850 would not be the ideal person to test, because of the buffer.  He might have a score of 863 dropped to 851 and we wouldn't be able to tell.  We'd tend to (wrongly) conclude, when his score did not change (850 to 850), that the factor in question had no effect. 

Much better IMO would your suggestion of a person who was close to 850 but not quite there.

[Anonymous]

I agree -- someone at 835-849 would be a better candidate to test out the AoYA with.

I can't imagine that the supernew account scorecard exists for very long.  6 months for sure, but not more than a year.

Have you ever read any of the FICO patents?

Here's an interesting one: https://www.google.com/patents/US7711635

Scroll down to the actions plan bullet list, which includes:

• D—Dealing with a newly started installment loan (weight: 1.4);
• G—Show Activity on accounts, or open a new account (weight: 1.0);

So it appears that a new installment loan hurts more than a new account in general, but later on it states "Any new loan can hurt your FICO score shortly after it's opened, since taking on new credit is often a sign of increased financial risk for some people."  Note where I bolded the text.

Another quote is "Opening a credit account can lower your FICO score in the short term, that is, the next six months to a year."  Also assume this is where the new account scorecard exists.

But then the next sentence or two is very inspiring to lead me to believe the new account scorecard is 6 months: "However, be careful about applying for any kind of credit in the six months before you need to apply for a large loan, such as a mortgage or auto loan."

Do note this patent is from 2006 so it's prior to FICO8's actual release date but may be inclusive of the work they did to enhance FICO8.  FICO patents are all publicly available to read and there are a lot of them.