Point Drop Datapoint for 62% UTI

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

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%

---

@SRT4kid93 

Gotta say you misread my meaning which was 5.5% rounds up to 6% same as 9.5% rounds up to 10%. So, a 6% threshold is effectively 5.5% if rounding to the nearest whole number is practiced as is commonly believed. Not crossing 5.50% rules out a hypothetical 6% AG UT as a consideration in the score drop.

Your added comment was uncalled for but, typical. 

My primary point in comparing data sets was to zero in on tthresholds. A $4k TB threshold and 5% or 6% AG UT fits my data. It appeared that $4k and 6% might also fit yours as well. A $5k TB threshold and 5% AG UT also fits my data but didn't align with your score change around $4k. 

Admittedly my data was on EX, not EQ and my scorecard is mature. So, combining results to zero in on thresholds has limitations.

[BrutalBodyShots]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

---

@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.

---

@Thomas_Thumb 

It doesn't, but it rules out 5% being related to the 19 point drop he experienced. His "before" utilization was 5%+ (5.1%), meaning before the change that led to the 19 point drop at 75% AWB. I was saying 5% wasn't a threshold point crossed, as before and after were both 5+. 6% on the other hand is another story, but with further clarification from @SRT4kid93 it appears to the decimal he was at 5.49% which would not have rounded up to 6%, thus eliminating a possible 6% from the list of possible reasons for the 19 point shift.

[SRT4kid93]

@Thomas_Thumb 

Im sorry if i came off as rude, I the asinine comment wasn't directed at you. It just seems like such a random number. 5.5% (or technically 6% since it would round up) is extremely random. Especially because every other threshold seems to follow a pattern (10, 30,50,70 etc). 

I've heard of 5% possibly being a threshold for aggregate  but never 5.5 or 6. (Plus again I was at 5.49% so im not even sure if that  would even round up to 6%. 

that's all I was saying, I didn't mean to

come off standoffish. Sometimes things come through differently via text/internet cause you can't hear people's tones or inflections. It genuinely wasn't directed at you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. 

I know you are trying to help and I appreciate that, and I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't appreciative or grateful. it's just a little frustrating. Everywhere I turn there seems to be very large unexplained score drops with my profile. 

I also didn't cross any dollar amount threshold, whether it's 4k or 3.5k. I went from 3066 to 3200 and change. So I just don't see any other explanation. Other than accounts with balances. Unless 6% is a genuine threshold and 5.49% rounds up to 6%

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

---

@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.

---

@Thomas_Thumb 

It doesn't, but it rules out 5% being related to the 19 point drop he experienced. His "before" utilization was 5%+ (5.1%), meaning before the change that led to the 19 point drop at 75% AWB. I was saying 5% wasn't a threshold point crossed, as before and after were both 5+.

---

^ Understood. That's what I thought you likely meant. Also, why I wanted to know his TCL to see if 5.5 was from rounding up or down. That was subsequently answered.

[SRT4kid93]

@BrutalBodyShots 

While im thanking people, I  also appreciate you trying to help as well. Like I told @Thomas_Thumb sometimes I get a little frustrated with my results, because the score drops I see always seem to be  way larger than they should and they're almost always explainable. (I hate to keep bringing this up, but my 78 point score drop from 1 new account that didn't drop me below any aging metrics thresholds is the perfect example) 

how does that even happen? 

so sometimes I say things out of frustration with the situation. But it wasn't directed at either of you. 

[BrutalBodyShots]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

^ Understood. That's what I thought you likely meant. Also, why I wanted to know his TCL to see if 5.5 was from rounding up or down. That was subsequently answered.

---

@Thomas_Thumb 

So can you think of anything else here that could possibly be score-impacting beyond the move from 50% AWB --> 75% AWB and/or 2 AWB --> 3 AWB? It seems aggregate and individual utilization threshold points have been ruled out, as have any likely/reasonable raw dollar threshold points. Other metrics to consider?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

@Thomas_Thumb 

Im sorry if i came off as rude, I the asinine comment wasn't directed at you. It just seems like such a random number. 5.5% (or technically 6% since it would round up) is extremely random. Especially because every other threshold seems to follow a pattern (10, 30,50,70 etc). 

I've heard of 5% possibly being a threshold for aggregate  but never 5.5 or 6. (Plus again I was at 5.49% so im not even sure if that  would even round up to 6%. 

that's all I was saying, I didn't mean to

come off standoffish. Sometimes things come through differently via text/internet cause you can't hear people's tones or inflections. It genuinely wasn't directed at you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. 

I know you are trying to help and I appreciate that, and I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't appreciative or grateful. it's just a little frustrating. Everywhere I turn there seems to be very large unexplained score drops with my profile. 

I also didn't cross any dollar amount threshold, whether it's 4k or 3.5k. I went from 3066 to 3200 and change. So I just don't see any other explanation. Other than accounts with balances. Unless 6% is a genuine threshold and 5.49% rounds up to 6%

---

Your score changes are often outliers. Thus, the focus on other potential contributing factors.

You have not been on these forums that long. Postings hypothesizing a 6% threshold came up 8 or more years ago. Over the years a few members have presented data showing a score change at that level.  I even recall a link to an Experian web page from a poster that had a 6% reference.

IIRC, CassieCard, a poster from years back with 3 cards on a new credit clean scorecard, thought crossing 6% impacted her score.  However, reproducibility was lacking and there was conflicting data from other posters. So, nothing random about 6% being suggested.

Years later CassieCard and Birdman7 established/managed a web site on credit scores. BBS frequented it. 

Odd intervals for scoring factors do exist. LexisNexis has a published list of odd ranges they use with their credit based insurance score algorithms. If interested, do a search as CBIS has been discussed in the general credit topics forum.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

^ Understood. That's what I thought you likely meant. Also, why I wanted to know his TCL to see if 5.5 was from rounding up or down. That was subsequently answered.

---

So can you think of anything else here that could possibly be score-impacting beyond the move from 50% AWB --> 75% AWB and/or 2 AWB --> 3 AWB? It seems aggregate and individual utilization threshold points have been ruled out, as have any likely/reasonable raw dollar threshold points. Other metrics to consider?

---

I previously mentioned total accounts with balances as a QTY metric. However, I don't see that as likely.

The best thing to do here is some targeted testing before 12 months is reached. I would suggest taking AG UT below say 4% while keeping 3 cards with balances but have one report under $100.  What happens to score? Next have the low balance card report $0 while keeping similar balance reporting on the other 2 cards. Does score still change 19 points? If yes, I think that would further rule out utilization and $ TB. 

Alternatively, pay all 3 cards down so they report small balances of between $50 and $200 each. This takes even small potential UT% and $ thresholds out of play. Get updated score for use as a baseline score.

Now payoff one balance so it reports $0 while having the others report similar small balances (do any cards report a mid cycle $0 balance?). Get new score. Does it still increase 19 points? If significantly less points gained, a $ TB or AG UT% threshold crossing must have contributed to the earlier 19  point change.

[SRT4kid93]

@Thomas_Thumb 

Well you learn something new everyday. I had never heard of 6% before. That's very interesting. I do somewhat remember hearing about a possible 7% threshold here and there (but I think people get this confused with another data point)

if you click on the amount of debt section, it says "fico high achievers have an average utilization of 7%". So I think this might be where the 7% figure came from.

I wonder why 6 and not 5. and if 6 is a threshold it makes me wonder if there are other oddities ( 15 or 25% for example)  

[Thomas_Thumb]

@SRT4kid93 

The 5% UT is more commonly mentioned than 6%. I sometimes suggest reporting AG UT under 5% (or 4.5% due to rounding up) for optimal score. Mostly I use whole number thresholds of 9%, 29% and 49%. If you believe in rounding up, your score is affected before you hit 10%, 30% or 50%.  The historical perspective targeting 6% was in response to its perceived randomness.

There are people that think every % change in aggregate utilization is a "threshold". However, Fico states they have interval classifications for utilization. We also see the signs of interval use in how score responds to changes in utilization. Some 1%, 2% or 3% utilization changes have no impact on score while others do. When there is no score shift it typically means you stayed within the same interval classification. I say typically because not all threshold crossings result in a score change for all files. As an example when I had an open loan I saw no score drop for a single card crossing above 29%, 49% or even 69% utilization as long as my AG UT stayed under 9%. Now, without the open mortgage, I see shifts in score where previously there was no movement. 

I am not a proponent of establishing thresholds based on 1 or 2 point changes. My guideline is a minimum of 3 points and preferrably 5 or more points to merit consideration. 

P.S. I've written too many messages hijacking this thread and should stop.

If further dialog is desired specific to your scores and discussion on thresholds, a new thread is a better option. If you do start a new thread, I'd request a Moderator move posts from 31 on to that thread. Post 31 is a clean breakpoint.