Score Only Increases When Balances Increase!

[Lel]

---

adamseve wrote:

creditwherecreditisdue,

The reason why I replied the way I did was to make sure I understood what you were saying.  If you're not willing toclarify what you said why did you respond in the first place?  I'm simply trying to understand what you submitted.  As simple as it may seem to you it may not be that way for someone else.

And as much as you like to believe race is not a factor no one can truly attest to that because no one would admit to it anyway.  How do you explain the difference in scores when comparing apples to apples?  I even had an finance manager take a look at them for me because we were all floored as to WHY the difference.  He couldn't explain it, but he did say that he'd seen it before.

And yes, I read that link as well as other online reports.  Unfortunately, race is a factor in EVERYTHING in the US even if it's not supposed to be, i.e., FICO scores.  Please note that this is MY OPINION, and just elbows & kneecaps we all have one!

---

I'm sorry that you're having trouble getting a clear answer.  Sometimes when people post here, it seems clear to the person making the comments, but it doesn't mean that is necessarily understandable to everyone else.  Like I mentioned on another thread, at some point in our lives we all were relative neophytes in our understanding of the credit world.

I'll try and take the time to offer my interpretation of what CWCID posted.  If anything I write here is not what CWCID intended, it is not because I am intentionally trying to distort his words.  I am making an earnest attempt at expanding on what was written.

In your situation, you are trying to make sense of your score fluctuations based solely on utilization of available credit.  However, based on what you have written, you cannot do this, because you are periodically adding new credit accounts.  Having new credit accounts (and their associated inquiries) adds a confounding factor in trying to interpret how your utilization is affecting your score.

Instead, let's consider a hypothetical situation, in which the balance reported across all revolving accounts never changes.  For example, say that you allow a balance of $1000 to report every month without variation.  Let's also say that your original combined CL is $8000.  Your utilization is 12.5%.  This leads to a certain FICO score.

Then, one month you request and receive a credit line increase from one of your credit card companies.  Your balance reporting is still $1000, but your  credit limit is now $12,000.  Your utilization is now 8.3%.  No new credit accounts were opened to achieve this higher CL.

Assuming (as CWCID stressed) that absolutely nothing else changes on your credit report - no new accounts, no derogs appearing or falling off, no paid installment accounts falling off, for example - then this decreased utilization will lead to one of two outcomes: (1) your score may increase or (2) your score may stay the same.

Again, this is what will occur if nothing else has changed in your credit report.  If your score went down despite a lower utilization, then something must be different in your credit report that is exerting negative pressure on your score.  Keep in mind that with each month that passes, your credit profile does change: your oldest account, length of credit history, and average account age (assuming no new accounts) all increase by one month.  But these all tend to be positive factors, unless, of course, you got rebucketed.

Consider the converse situation, in which you suffer a decrease in your credit limits resulting in an increased utilization.  Assuming that absolutely nothing else changes on your credit report, then your increased utilization will result in one of two outcomes (1) your score may decrease or (2) your score may stay the same.

So, utilization does matter, but it can be hard to isolate the specific effect of changes in utilization.  In your case, it may not be possible because of the new accounts added to your credit profile.

And race is definitely not factored in the FICO score.  Your analogy of comparing "apples to apples" is not valid, because no two persons are going to have the exact same credit profile.  If they're apples, then one would be Granny Smith and another might be Braeburn, and thus not directly comparable.  Beyond that I cannot comment, because discussions of race are not permitted on the FICO fourms.

5 things we don't talk about

[haulingthescoreup]

And I will just add that race is not reported on credit reports, so there is no way that it can be factored into a FICO score. FICO scores are generated solely from the data on each credit bureau's reports.

This is not to say that lending decisions might not be tainted by racial attitudes. If this happens, it is a violation of the ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act,) which is a whole different issue.

[marty56]

For my profile, EQ likes to see a balance report and gives me 3 points if I do.  TU doesnt want any CC to report so if you are trying to maximize your score, know which report they are going to pull and if it is both TU and EQ, do whats will give you the highest score among both.

 IMHO 0% util always looks good on MR despite what FICO does.

[adamseve]

Lel,

Thanks for the clarification.  It helped a great deal.

It's so sad that people are still afraid to talk about the 5 things link.  It's so easy for people to not talk about them even in the most sincere requests for open dialogue. 

Hauling,

You're so right about lending practices.  However, even with all the laws that are supposed to prevent these type things from happening because they're not supposed to be a factor it still happens.  Also, it's so hard to prove because like most things that are discriminatory they aren't always clear except to the person it's happening too.

Anyway...wish I'd never asked the question, but it showed me quite a lot about a number of things and they weren't all good.

[Lel]

It's not that people are afraid to talk about those subjects - on the contrary, many are quite willing to voice their opinion.  However, on anonymous forums such as this, some people also see fit to deliberately insult and disparage others when discussions regarding these subjects arise.  Thus, the "5 things" restrictions were instituted to try to keep these forums civil.

Clearly, there are going to be cases in which discussions about credit and lending necessarily need to have a reference to politics - e.g. the recent credit card legislation, the Making Home Affordable plan.  And as HTSU noted, lending practices based on race can be an issue.

The issue in this thread, however, is not whether race plays a role in lending practices, but whether race is considered in the calculation of FICO score.  The answer, again, is that it is most definitely not.