Point Drop Datapoint for 62% UTI

[SRT4kid93]

no, I have not tried reporting all accounts with the balance. I have no idea what that would do to my score.

3/4 awb is the most I've done. So yea never 100%

I assume 100% awb along with the raw number of 4 total accounts (which I believe is also a metric,  so it's not just percentage, but also total raw number) would result in another large loss. 

please note I'm not saying that the score drop was 100% because of the accounts with balances, but I did not see any other variable that it could've been. ( again all this happened within two days the drop and then the subsequent recovery)

Before:

-2 accounts with balances

-total balances 3066 (individual balances 2372 and 694)

- individual utilization 12% and 2%

- Aggregate utilization 5% (so I didn't go from under 5% to over 5%, was always at 5%)

after:

-3 awb

- total balances 3324 (so didn't cross over any raw dollar amount)

- individual balances remained the same, with the addition of $258 from capital one

- individual utilization, 12%, 2% and 4% (so the individual utilization of the cap one card was only 4%, no thresholds crossed)

- aggregate utilization 5% 

if you see something I don't please let me know 

[BrutalBodyShots]

My gut says that something is being overlooked here, as 19 points from moving from 50% AWB to 75% AWB seems way high to me. As I said earlier though, I have zero experience with young scorecards and it's not data I typically look at. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about it. I think testing 100% AWB on your file would probably provide some insight though, so checking that would be cool. And you are right about number of accounts with a balance (not just AWB%) matters, especially on young scorecards and with EQ from what I recall.

[SRT4kid93]

Before:

-2 accounts with balances

-total balances 3066 (individual balances 2372 and 694)

- individual utilization 12% and 2%

- Aggregate utilization 5% (so I didn't go from under 5% to over 5%, was always at 5%)

after:

-3 awb

- total balances 3324 (so didn't cross over any raw dollar amount)

- individual balances remained the same, with the addition of $258 from capital one

- individual utilization, 12%, 2% and 4% (so the individual utilization of the cap one card was only 4%, no thresholds crossed)

- aggregate utilization 5% 

if you see something I don't please let me know 

[BrutalBodyShots]

What is your 5% utilization broken down into a decimal before and after? Naturally, with an increased balance of $258 your utilization did increase, even if with rounding you're still at 5% both before and after.

[SRT4kid93]

5.1% increased to 5.5%

[BrutalBodyShots]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

5.1% increased to 5.5%

---

Gotcha. That rules out the 5% potential threshold. I have heard "6%" thrown around a few times, and 5.5% could round up to that... so you could always test that theory by reporting a balance on 3 cards again and just dropping one of them enough to land in the 5.1%-5.4% range. I doubt this is "it" but just throwing something out there for discussion purposes.

What sort of testing have you done with raw dollar thresholds? I've only found them at values around $2k, $5k and $10k (none super concrete) but that's of course on a clean/thick/mature scorecard. I'd venture to guess that if anything, on a young scorecard they may be a bit tighter and possibly more score-impacting as well. 

Regarding AWB% again... you saw 6 points in going from 1 of 4 (25%) to 2 of 4 (50%) correct? Have you incurred the AZ penalty (0 of 4 / 0%) yet and if so, can you quantify the loss see from that on EQ8? If you haven't checked AZ, I'd be equally interested in knowing the impact there as the move from 75% to 100%.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Just to clarify my position. Fico reason codes specify a scoring factor associated with: "too many accounts with balances". That factor includes all account types (except AU accounts). I confirmed my mortgage was included but my AU card was not. My charge card was included in total accounts with balances.

There is no % of accounts with balances factor listed by Fico that I recall. I believe any % metric is limited to credit cards. Charge cards are a type of credit card and are included. Similarly, total credit card balance includes charge cards.

However charge cards are not revolvers and therefore are not included in aggregate revolving utilization nor do they count toward revolving account activity.

My understanding is a HELOC is typically classified as a revolving account. However, it is not a credit card. It certainly counts toward accounts with balances but would be excluded from any % of credit cards with balances.

I would suggest reviewing my post #39, the data table and the two dual threshold options presented that support my data. 

I see no $2k total balance threshold but my data supports a TB at either $4k (if the AG UT threshold is 6%) or a TB at $5k ( if the AG UT % threshold is at 5% ). As mentioned in that thread, my 2-step score rebound is specific to a drop in TB and AG UT%. Also, my data is Experian Fico 8 (not Equifax Fico 8) 

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

no, I have not tried reporting all accounts with the balance. I have no idea what that would do to my score.

3/4 awb is the most I've done. 

I assume 100% awb along with the raw number of 4 total accounts (which I believe is also a metric,  so it's not just percentage, but also total raw number) would result in another large loss. 

please note I'm not saying that the score drop was 100% because of the accounts with balances, but I did not see any other variable that it could've been. ( again all this happened within two days the drop and then the subsequent recovery)

Before:

-2 accounts with balances

-total balances 3066 (individual balances 2372 and 694)

- individual utilization 12% and 2%

after:

-3 awb

- total balances 3324 (so didn't cross over any raw dollar amount)

- individual balances remained the same, with the addition of $258 from capital one

if you see something I don't please let me know 

---

@SRT4kid93 

What exactly is your TCL? I would like to calculate you AG UT % to x.xx vs a rounded whole number?

Also, please re-read my post #39 with data table and proposed thresholds scenarios to account for my 2-step score increase.

Regarding total AWB as a number it is a metric. However, if you reached one at 3 there won't be another one at 4. Regardless, expect a drop at 100% cards with balances.

Again- you have no open loans, correct?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

5.1% increased to 5.5%

---

Gotcha. That rules out the 5% potential threshold. 

---

@BrutalBodyShots  @SRT4kid93 

How do both data points being above a 5% potential threshold rule out the existance of that threshold? Perhaps I misunderstand and you mean a 5% threshold can't be attributable to any of SRT's point loss.

Both data points are below 6.0%.  Was the 5.5% rounded up (from say from 5.49) or down (say from 5.51)? That makes a difference for those that believe Fico rounds to the nearest whole number vs truncation adherants who believe the actual whole number must be reached. If the 5.5 was from rounding down, then a 6% AG UT threshold could be a factor - because 5.5% was crossed.

Taking my data into account, A total balance threshold of $4k and a AG UT threshold of 5.5% (6% rounded up) could fit with @SRT4kid93 results. 

[SRT4kid93]

The exact utilizations were 5.07 and  5.49 (rounded to the nearest tenth in my previous calculation)

total credit limits at the time was 60,500 although it's since gone up to 61k thanks to $500 increase from cap 1. 

gotta admit I've never heard of 5.5% being a threshold before. That seems extremely random and asinine 

although either way I technically never crossed above 5.5%