Question about FICO score ranges that go up to 900

[CH-7-Mission-Accomplished]

I've wondered what exactly it means when someone has a score between 851 and 900 on the auto and credit-card enhanced versions.  Does the range of 851 to 900 just indicate a super premium buyer (so a perfect 850+50), or would you take:

FICO Classic:      720/850 = 0.847

FICO Bankcard:  900 X 0.847 = 762.3

So to have an equivalent 720 FICO score on an enhanced 900 version score, you would need a 762?

[SouthJamaica]

---

@CH-7-Mission-Accomplished wrote:

I've wondered what exactly it means when someone has a score between 851 and 900 on the auto and credit-card enhanced versions.  Does the range of 851 to 900 just indicate a super premium buyer (so a perfect 850+50), or would you take:

FICO Classic:      720/850 = 0.847

FICO Bankcard:  900 X 0.847 = 762.3

So to have an equivalent 720 FICO score on an enhanced 900 version score, you would need a 762?

---

I'm sure it does not mean "super premium"

[Anonymalous]

The most straightforward assumption is a linear mapping between the two ranges (300 to 850 vs. 250 to 900, so a 760 out of 850 ~= 794 out of 900), but I think it's unlikely to be that simplistic.

[Thomas_Thumb]

It is nothing like that. The industry options take their Classic Fico score counterpart and then apply a +/- 50 point overlay to the Classic score.

It is much more difficult to get a 900 score than an 850. They don't scale.

[CH-7-Mission-Accomplished]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

It is nothing like that. The industry options take their Classic Fico score counterpart and then apply a +/- 50 point overlay to the Classic score.

It is much more difficult to get a 900 score than an 850. They don't scale.

---

So does this mean that you start, say, at 850, and then they analyze your history with auto loans or other installment loans to come up with the +/- 50?   So maybe somebody who has a classic 850 but no auto loan history would get a deduction in the auto score?

[Thomas_Thumb]

No.

If you have a solid profile you are always going to get additional points from the Bankcard or Auto overlay. Not having an Auto loan on file can limit you from getting 50 points from the overlay. However, lack of that attribute only costs a handful of points.

It's more like elements and degree of difficulty in a gymnastics routine. Not having an auto loan is like not having an optional element in a program. A score of 10 (or 50) is not possible due to lack of difficulty but faultless execution of what is present in the routine (file) can still score 9.8 (or 48) points.

Proper execution in the routine (file) matters most. Failed execution of required elements (lates, charge offs, utilization max out) is necessary to receive a negative overlay score. No one with an 850 Classic score would have failed to execute on the required elements.

As an example I had 850s on my Classic Fico 8 scores. Profile included a few revolving accounts and a mortgage. Had optimal utilization and payment history. Was able to reach 900 on TU and EX Bankcard but maxed out in the 890s on the Auto counterparts. - No auto loan open or closed on file. The Auto program was missing a potential score boosting optional element so unable to achieve max possible score.

[babbles]

I'm up to 878 on my enhanced credit card, not that it means much more but would like to see one of them @900 one day!  

[babbles]

I'm just wondering why credit scoring has to be a big secret.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Update:

I no longer have an open loan on file. My bankcard industry option score dropped from the 890s to the 860s. Clearly, an active loan is a critical overlay element for both Bankcard and Auto. Even so, the overlay added points to the classic score (nominally 15-20 points).

[Zoostation1]

Several months back I had a weird situation where EX8 bankcard went down while classic and auto went up (as did all EX9 varieties too).  The only possible cause I could come up with is that EX8 BC took away points for crossing $2000 in total reported balances that month (was at $1992 the prior), but everything still rounded to the same tenth of a % and didn't cross any of the usual suspect thresholds (no acount was at the 28.9% individual or the suspected 8.9% aggregate) and AWB was the same.  I gave up on trying to figure that one out.