Penalty For A Zero Balance Reporting? Non-usage

[Anonymous]

Non-revolver being seen as a revolver somehow?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous 

---

@Anonymous Wow! I thought you meant a negative reason code. But nevertheless that's the score ingredient section from MF, so it's supposed to hold water too. Are the respective Score differences? Looks like it might be miscoded to me. 

---

The negative reason code is listed above for the AE5

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Non-revolver being seen as a revolver somehow?

---

I feel like it is obviously not being seen like a revolver since it not included in the utilization, but perhaps like a charge card balance, which is not included into revolving util, right?

The accounts on the EQ CR are listed as "other" instead of "installment account", so perhaps that skews it like a charge card? A bit of a stretch, but I have been trying to figure this out.

[Anonymous]

I think you’re on to something

[Anonymous]

Wow so is it just miscoded as open ended or are CFAs automatically classified as open-ended? Did this happen for SO too?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Wow so is it just miscoded as open ended or are CFAs automatically classified as open-ended? Did this happen for SO too?

---

Yes, this also happened to SO, but it is not just the CFAs. It is any of the SLs listed as "other" in category on EQ. The SLs listed under "installment" are not included, I believe. I will have to douboe check the math, but that is certainly what it looks like.

[Anonymous]

What seems to differentiate whether it will be installment or other?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
What seems to differentiate whether it will be installment or other?

---

I believe the defaupted student loans are listed as "other" and the only ones being included in this total with my revolving credit balances. On EX it lists them as "single payment loan" for payment term, but EX does not include them in the "balance of revolving/open-ended accounts". It is not listed like that for EQ or TU. They are listed as "unknown" for payment term.

I also believe they are being figured as charge card -like debt because as these defaulted SLs have aged off, been removed via EE, or removed from finishing rehab, there have been zero score gains for me nor SO.

The defaulted SLs that were first party collections, were not included in the "revolving/open ended balances" that were removed via EE, saw large score gains.

The CFAs had $0 balance and were paid/closed and entirely positive TLs. So it was not CFAs that were being calculated in this.

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous interestingly enough, IDK if TU and EX have the CFA negative reason codes, but on EX when the CFAs aged off, my scores went *down* across the board (I assumed because the AAoA went down) vs EQ when they dropped, my scores went up!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous interestingly enough, IDK if TU and EX have the CFA negative reason codes, but on EX when the CFAs aged off, my scores went *down* across the board (I assumed because the AAoA went down) vs EQ when they dropped, my scores went up!

---

@Anonymous: Here is the reason statement differential list for FICO 8 at all 3 CRAs.

All 3 have "Too many consumer finance company accounts".

EX/TU also have "Lack of recent consumer finance company account information"

TU also has "Length of time consumer finance company loans have been established"

EQ has "Number of consumer finance company inquiries" and "Time since most recent consumer finance company account opening is too short"

"Lack" here is not a negative - it's a good thing. CFAs are always negative, as FICO explains:

"The fact that you have a consumer finance company loan on your credit report means that you represent a higher risk to lenders than someone with no consumer finance loans. Even if this account is closed, it will still lower your FICO® Score."

But I don't think you're a higher risk - definitely lower with how much you know now.