I had an unusually isolated event, where, due to some kind of snafu in connection with a credit union changing credit card processing services, an account was reported to TU and EQ with an 85% balance. A few days later it was correctly reported at zero. TU FICO 8 went down 7 points when the mistake reported, and then up 7 points when it was corrected. EQ FICO 8 went down 15 points with the erroneous report, and then up 15 points when corrected.
So it was clear that in my profile, when there are no > 30% accounts, having an 85% account was worth 7 FICO 8 points in TU and 15 FICO 8 points in EQ.
@Anonymous wrote:Cool info. When you say you had no > 30% accounts, I'm assuming you have at least 1 (probably several) with a reported balance in the 8.9%-28.9% range... would that be correct?
Yes
Good timing for the hiccup, as I know you sometimes have cards report with a more mid-range balance of (say) 50% or so - this gives you a better look at the impact of a single high utilization account.
Yes it was good timing. Actually I usually don't have anything > 30% unless something goes wrong. Something has gone wrong in each of the last few months.
What was before/after aggregate utilization with/without the 85% reported single trade line? I imagine it didn't shift much?
It probably did shift significantly, since the balance involved represented around 2% of my overall limits, but I can't actually answer your question because the snafu never made it into my EX report, which is the only one from which I can get that kind of information.
@Anonymous wrote:2% on your profile from what I recall can be a factor, as I believe in the past you've mentioned point changes from aggregate utilization percentage moves of only 1% at values inside of the 8.9% threshold.
Absolutely; it definitely can be a factor. So trying to separate out precisely which part of the score change was attributable to that, and which was attributable to a pure individual utilization change, would be impossible. But a utilization swing of 2% in aggregate utilization wouldn't produce as many points as this event did.
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:Absolutely; it definitely can be a factor. So trying to separate out precisely which part of the score change was attributable to that, and which was attributable to a pure individual utilization change, would be impossible. But a utilization swing of 2% in aggregate utilization wouldn't produce as many points as this event did.
Not impossible, but it would take work and/or the right natural reportings to happen where you could determine the impact of a 2% aggregate utilization change where there was no change to your highest individual utilization card... which would of course require multiple cards to report higher balances. In doing that though, you could cross a number of accounts with balances threshold, thus introducing another variable, but that variable could be quantified as well from other (or prior) testing based on number of accounts with balances that didn't involve [noteworthy] aggregate utilization shifts.
It might be possible with EX, where I can get daily real time information.
But it wouldn't be possible, except at very great expense, with EQ and TU, where all I can get is time delayed information unless I were willing to pay $40+ a day.