Penalty For A Zero Balance Reporting? Non-usage

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@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.

---

Then I definitely find it strange that EQ scores went up and the negative reason code of "CFAs" disappeared when those 4 TLs aged out and that my scores with EX went down (never had a negative reason code for "CFAs" listed).

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@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.

---

Then I definitely find it strange that EQ scores went up and the negative reason code of "CFAs" disappeared when those 4 TLs aged out and that my scores with EX went down (never had a negative reason code for "CFAs" listed).

---

Me too. It makes me think that these CFAs aren't tracked exclusively on the 'CFA reason codes'. Like maybe they also influence installment loan amounts/proportions.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

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:

---

Maybe I'm over thinking this (or under thinking it?) but "lack" of a negative item would always be a positive, no?  That being said, how can lack of a negative item show up as a negative reason code? 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

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:

---

Maybe I'm over thinking this (or under thinking it?) but "lack" of a negative item would always be a positive, no?  That being said, how can lack of a negative item show up as a negative reason code? 

---

No, I made the mistake. I was reading it like it was merely for the presence of a CFA account. But it's "Lack of recent consumer finance account information", which must be a negative that can occur only for people that already have CFA accounts on file.

I think that's for skipped reports for an open CFA account already on file.

[Anonymous]

Got ya, so it's a negative reason code pointing to a closed CFA... basically saying yeah you've got a CFA on your CR which is a negative, but that's not as bad as having a current/open CFA on your CR.

[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 were there any remaining CFAs on EX/EQ? Also the CFA name lists may be different across CRAs. 

[Anonymous]

I think it’s saying an update got missed, as Cassie was suggesting.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I think it’s saying an update got missed, as Cassie was suggesting.

---

Does 'Lack of recent installment loan information' ever show up for someone that never had an installment loan?

I thought it meant, "You have an installment loan on file, and that's a good thing for credit mix, but it's closed now."

I bet it's extremely rare for anyone with a CFA to see "Lack of recent consumer finance account information", and no one will ever see it if they don't have one on file.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if it’s limited to files with closed accounts or an open one that missed an update, I guess it could be either one, I don’t know.