Well this is interesting to me at any rate, but I can't explain it any other way.
Background: The court reference number listed for my tax lien was incorrect; pulled the record, saw it was for someone else, disputed as not mine with the name of the person with that docket, and TU up and whacked the lien. Should've tried that years ago but live and learn.
Cost of one additional TU pull and here's what we get, take the FICO 9 scores which I'll publish later with a grain of salt because the prior one didn't have a credit card reporting a balance which is a negative under FICO 9 apparently (PLOC counts as revolving under FICO 9, and credit cards are explicitly broken out).
TU FICO 04 5/4/17: only 3 reason codes
|
TU FICO 04 5/13/17: 4 reason codes
- 1. You opened a new credit account relatively recently.
- 2. You have one or more accounts showing missed payments or derogatory indicators.
- 3. You have not established a long revolving credit history.
- 4. You have a short credit history.
So two interesting things to me, first my late was from 10/2015, so it's truly unlikely to have shifted age over the span of 9 days... but note the verbiage differences; for reference the second one matches my other bureaus where my lates were from 2010. Interestingly this occurred also on FICO 8 models, but not FICO 9 (FICO 9 still has the recent tag on all 3).
Secondly I've never ever experienced any sort of new credit account penalty before, to wit I'm not certain it exists on my prior scorecard and the fact I went from 3 to 4 reason codes seems to suggest that is accurate. Last account opened in Jan 2017, so 4 months ago. I don't have that tag on any of the other models so either 1) my file still isn't clean enough, or 2) that new accounts penalty may have been deprecated, maybe.
3+4 on the most recent pull seem just like dogpiling but to be fair these two don't matter that much to my scores anyway.
At least unlike the lates being excluded on EX, this appears to have been a positive change everywhere except possibly FICO 9 where I wasn't 100% clean (had a balance only on PLOC and had the no balances on a credit card reason code at the time of the 5/4 pull). The TU 04 and 8 scores are clean datapoints, still have a 60D from 2010 and a 30D from 10/15 so not zestfully clean yet which is why the magnitude isn't as much as might've been hoped.
| Score | 5/4/17 | 5/13/17 | Delta |
| TU FICO 8 | 731 | 757 | 26 |
| TU FICO 4 | 741 | 742 | 1 |
| TU FICO 9 | 764 | 771 | 7* |
| TU FICO 8 AU | 744 | 776 | 32 |
| TU FICO 4 AU | 750 | 756 | 6 |
| TU FICO 9 AU | 764 | 788 | 24* |
| TU FICO 8 BC | 747 | 781 | 34 |
| TU FICO 4 BC | 731 | 765 | 34 |
| TU FICO 9 BC | 753 | 782 | 29* |
Now that I think of it, the change in reason codes shouldn't have surprised me that much based on scorecard: there are more scorecards for clean than dirty files, so it follows there are more factors which go into the bucket sorting when we're talking all scorecards.
Also to one of TT's points and charts, I now only have a 30D and a 60D late on TU, with the new reason codes w.r.t. FICO 04, possible that it may have been a primary sort on the presense of major derogatory which 30/60D allegedly don't fall into (and that's probably correct in my estimation FWIW) and is possible I'm on a cleanish scorecard, with some blemishes, rather than being in a straight dirty bucket.