Recently I went from 3/18 cards up to 8/19 cards reporting, and from 1% up to 2.5%.
Then I went down to 2/18 cards reporting, and utilization of 1%.
Scores haven't budged in either direction.
@Anonymous wrote:Good data.
How old is your oldest account,
28 years
how many total acounts do you have on your reports
29
and what's your AAoA?
3 yrs 2 mos
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:Recently I went from 3/18 cards up to 8/19 cards reporting, and from 1% up to 2.5%.
Then I went down to 2/18 cards reporting, and utilization of 1%.
Scores haven't budged in either direction.
Are your results inclusive of all three CRAs (clean file and 2 dirty files)?
Yes
As I recall, TU was the clean one
Correct
. somewhat curious if clean/dirty scorecards are treating these factors differently
All 3 seem to have treated it as total non event
No surprise on the 1% to 2.5% utilization range for Fico 08. Really, I would not anticipate any movement in score due to increased utilization until at least 5%. Also, unlike Fico 04 and perhaps Fico 98, the Fico 08 algorithm does not rely on a "one card only" status for score maximization in cards reporting a balance category.
Too bad there's no way to monitor those like FICO 8
I strongly suspect your EQ Fico 04 (score 5) took a hit as it is very skitish relative to # cards reporting - more so than TU Fico 04 and much more so than EX Fico 04.
Too bad we have no evidence
This is why I'm seriously considering not bothering with the other scores any more. I don't think the once a month scores are very illuminating.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:Recently I went from 3/18 cards up to 8/19 cards reporting, and from 1% up to 2.5%.
Then I went down to 2/18 cards reporting, and utilization of 1%.
Scores haven't budged in either direction.
Are your results inclusive of all three CRAs (clean file and 2 dirty files)?
Yes
As I recall, TU was the clean one
Correct
. somewhat curious if clean/dirty scorecards are treating these factors differently
All 3 seem to have treated it as total non event
No surprise on the 1% to 2.5% utilization range for Fico 08. Really, I would not anticipate any movement in score due to increased utilization until at least 5%. Also, unlike Fico 04 and perhaps Fico 98, the Fico 08 algorithm does not rely on a "one card only" status for score maximization in cards reporting a balance category.
Too bad there's no way to monitor those like FICO 8
I strongly suspect your EQ Fico 04 (score 5) took a hit as it is very skitish relative to # cards reporting - more so than TU Fico 04 and much more so than EX Fico 04.
Too bad we have no evidence
This is why I'm seriously considering not bothering with the other scores any more. I don't think the once a month scores are very illuminating.
Unfortunately, mortgage scores are critical for home loans. Fortunately 3B reports are available for interested parties to see how their scores are trending over time and provides a means to look at how all scores react to relative to each other and the scoring factors.
All data comparisons are based on point in time snapshots. If the files are stable (not adding/dropping accounts, inquiries, etc..), without a lot of accounts and aged, time between data sets is not influencing results. The challenge is the amount of time needed to change factors and then pull data snapshots that focus on target areas of interest.
I would agree that active files with a lot of open accounts often have too many things changing to gain insight into why quarterly 3B scores may have shifted.
As near as I can tell the 3B Report provides 3 mortgage scores:
FICO5 EQ BUT NOT EX OR TU
FICO4 TU BUT NOT EX OR EQ
FICO3 EX BUT NOT EQ or TU
Looking at those once a month doesn't tell me a thing about how any of the 3 FICO models reacts to any given event. It just tells me how (a) one model at one bureau (b) reacts to the sum total of all things which have occurred over a period of a month.
I don't see how such data can support any generalized statement about how a particular scoring model reacts to particular types of events.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:All data sets are point in time whether one day or one month apart. Comparing data sets that are taken days apart have no more or less validity than comparing data sets taken one month apart. There are a certain # of cards showing balances and certain utilizations at each point in time. Really not an accumulation of things - files are scored on the the data set pulled at that instant in time. It's the state of the file at "snapshot A" compared to "snapshot B".
For a robust comparison, it's always best to limit changes to only one or two factors of interest regardless of time between the snapshots.
If you aren't adding/deleting accounts, adding inquiries, having items drop off reports or significantly altering balance to loan ratio on installment loans and accounts are well aged, then inquiries, AAoA and new accounts don't come into play as a variables.
Note:
1) EQ Fico score 5 is Fico 04 model
2) TU Fico score 4 is Fico 04 model
3) EX Fico score 3 is Fico 04 model.
So, all three CRAs show Fico 09, Fico 08 and Fico 04 scores on 3B reports. Only EX lists a score for the Fico 98 Model which is listed as Fico score 2 in reports.
That's good to know, thanks T_T 