Question for Score Experts- 0% uti but....

[Anonymous]

CGiD,  since  not many people realize that store cards  often  report as charge cards I suggest  to change   "(a)" in future post to something like

(a)  A true credit card (not a charge card, not a store card)

[Thomas_Thumb]

Cobranded store cards (those listing Visa or Mastercard that can be used elsewhere) should report as revolving credit cards. I would not want to handicap someone from reporting a balance on just a cobranded store card. It is such an easy test with no lingering impact. Those that practice AZEO can/should test it for their own edification.

I confirmed a few years back that my AMEX green card and AU BofA Visa do not count toward recent activity or toward utilization for me on Fico 8. AU cards always count in the older Fico 04 and Fico 98 models.

Side note: I required AMEX to remove the pay over time (POT) feature on my green card. Perhaps AMEX charge cards with POT might get tagged as a revolver. Not interested in testing that myself.

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

When AZEO is formally described, there's typically the disclaimer that the one card that reports a balance should be...

(a)  A true credit card (not a charge card)

(b)  A card in your name (not an AU card)

(c)  A card with a balance of at least $5

(d)  A card with a credit limit of at least 34.9k

Much of the time, however, people omit those four caveats.

---

Um... don't you mean a card with a limit LESS THAN $34.9k?

(As certain older FICO models ignore cards at $35k+, and some other FICO models may ignore cards at $50k+...)

[Anonymous]

---

@iv

---

Um... don't you mean a card with a limit LESS THAN $34.9k?

(As certain older FICO models ignore cards at $35k+, and some other FICO models may ignore cards at $50k+...)

---

That's exactly what CGID meant, a card with a limit no greater than $34.9k.

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_ThumbIt is such an easy test with no lingering impact. Those that practice AZEO can/should test it for their own edification.

---

My Lowe's card is my only "store" card and it says "charge account" not "credit card" when listed under account type.  I'm assuming then that this account would be ignored, but I plan to test it out at the end of this month by going AZEO with that one being Lowe's.

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

Cobranded store cards (those listing Visa or Mastercard that can be used elsewhere) should report as revolving credit cards. I would not want to handicap someone from reporting a balance on just a cobranded store card. It is such an easy test with no lingering impact. Those that practice AZEO can/should test it for their own edification.

 OK, but I do not consider the cobranded cards to be store cards.   In fact to avoid confusion, I would suggest to avoid the term "cobranded store cards" and   use "cobranded cards" instead

[Anonymous]

I agree, as a cobranded card with a major processing network logo on it (like a Chase Amazon Visa for example) can be used anywhere.  This therefore cannot be considered simply a "store" card IMO.

[Anonymous]

In light of the comments of  TT regarding cobranded cards,  maybe this is a better list

(a) A true credit card (not a charge card)

(b) A card in your name (not an AU card)

(c) A card with a balance of at least $5

(d) A card with a credit limit at most 34.9k

(e) A card which is not a store card (but cobranded cards are ok)

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@iv

---

Um... don't you mean a card with a limit LESS THAN $34.9k?

(As certain older FICO models ignore cards at $35k+, and some other FICO models may ignore cards at $50k+...)

---

That's exactly what CGID meant, a card with a limit no greater than $34.9k.

---

Yes... that's my point - he clearly meant that, but actually wrote: "A card with a credit limit of at least 34.9k", which is exactly backwards!

[Revelate]

First question, where was this score change seen?

Second point, it's not Revolving vs. Charge that's a problem, it's Term = 1 month for the exclusion.

Amex excluded, Wally when I tested it was not even though it did report as a "charge card" in the details... checked both FICO 04 and FICO 8 on that.  Also other potential option is it's an AU though this doesn't appear likely.

I don't think there's been any distinction in any FICO model released within the last 15 years at this point between a store/retail card and a national bank card.