No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Trudy wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
I would’ve expected 5, 4 and 2 to have it at 31% with a balance. Hmmm. You weren’t lying when you said you had a weird file. Lol.Do we have a solid understanding of what gets included in the denominator for these? Obviously open loans and cards do. What about closed loans and closed cards?
I went from 7 accounts with balances to 8 overnight and EX2 took away 6 points. It had just given me those points two days ago when I went from 8 to 7, so kudos for consistency. On EX, I have 14 open accounts, 12 closed. One of the closed accounts is a card, all the others are loans.
So if only open accounts count, 7/14 (50%) is OK. 8/14 (57%) is not.
If open and closed everything counts, 7/26 (27%) is OK. 8/26 (31%) is not.
Also, FWIW, EX2 didn't care that my scorable inquiries went from 4 to 2, which also happened overnight... maybe. Leap day might have screwed up the math. The two inquiries were on on 2/14/2020. EX8 decided they were unscorable as of today. I assume EX2 counts days the same way as EX8, but perhaps not.
Good question we're not absolutely certain on that. We have one data point the EX2 may include closed accounts in the metric. But we are far from certain. Personally I've been doing calculations for open revolvers, calculations for open accounts, and calculations for open and closed accounts trying to find a pattern. We'll figure it out sooner or later.
as to your second question, version 2 and version 8 are different on the inquiries. They are a day off on leap year for EX2 Rev discovered that.
Remi and I form a lil pattern today. If closed accounts count, then we both got the penalty on an EX2-based score (Classic for her. BC for me.) when we went over 30%. We both got it at 31% -- 4/13 for her. 8/26 for me. And neither of us got it one account below that -- 23% for her, 27% for me. Sure seems like closed accounts count and there's a threshold at 30%.
@Curious_George2 this lend credence to the prior data point then. @Trudy Did you still have the accounts with a balance Reason code after you went under that?
Hey @Anonymous. Took me some time to figure out what this tag was about but I think it's regarding when my EX2 scores dropped due to a closed account falling off? If so here's the changes.
@Trudy I apologize I should've been more specific, I was talking about when you were doing your testing and discovered that number of accounts with the balance may include closed accounts. Apparently, we have 2 more data points that appear to indicate a 30% number of accounts with a balance threshold on EX2.
IIRC, you were the one that first brought the data points that allowed us to theorize that closed accounts may be included in the metric.
I can't remember if that's when we couldn't remember if it was the closed account or not but I will look at your screenshots.
Yeah this is it this is where we discovered EX2 may have been counting closed Revolvers in the number of accounts with a balance Metric. Can you please give us your before and after numbers of accounts with a balance over total number of accounts including closed accounts?
i'm sorry I'm lazy, if you have it handy, if not I'll go re-read the thread. I don't think that was age, I think it was a number of accounts witg a balance, and it looks like they just found a threshold at 30% including closed accounts just like you.
@Anonymous wrote:
Yeah this is it this is where we discovered EX2 may have been counting closed Revolvers in the number of accounts with a balance Metric. Can you please give us your before and after numbers of accounts with a balance over total number of accounts including closed accounts?
i'm sorry I'm lazy, if you have it handy, if not I'll go re-read the thread. I don't think that was age, I think it was a number of accounts witg a balance, and it looks like they just found a threshold at 30% including closed accounts just like you.
Yep, Yep that's the scenario. I think the only thing the print screens above doesn't provide is the number of accounts reporting.
It's 5. So with closed accounts, reporting on April 6, I had 5 of 17 accounts reporting (2INS, 3REV) = 29%. When the closed rev account fell off and I didn't realize it until further investigation on April 7, I had 5/16 accounts reporting (2INS, 3REV) = 31%. Never any balances on closed accounts.
@Trudy @Remedios @Curious_George2 well with 3 data points supporting it, I think there is a number of accounts with a balance threshold at 30% including closed accounts on EX2. I think this looks a little conclusive can I get some agreement? @Revelate
@Thomas_Thumb I thought you might enjoy this.
And that is not the lowest threshold I might also add.
@Curious_George2 also keep in mind there is a metric for total amount owed that includes both loans and revolving balances. It could affect Score. That is not the threshold we're looking for of course because we have the specific reason code for revolving Balances. Just a thought because that's another thing that can cause score changes. And another thing not well understood.
@Anonymous wrote:And that is not the lowest threshold I might also add.
@Curious_George2 also keep in mind there is a metric for total amount owed that includes both loans and revolving balances. It could affect Score. That is not the threshold we're looking for of course because we have the specific reason code for revolving Balances. Just a thought because that's another thing that can cause score changes. And another thing not well understood.
Good point and good reminder. I don't recall reading any reports of people seeing the reason code for that. Before this week, I would have assumed that meant its effect on scoring is small, so it is difficult or impossible for it to crack the top four on a score under 800. (Side note: Industry scores keep showing reasons past 800. Do they stop at 850? If not, they could give us a bit more visibility into small-impact reasons.) This thread has opened my mind to the notion that some reasons might get suppressed, either conditionally or even all the time. But the Occam's razor explanation for a reason never being seen is that it's associated with a small penalty. Right?
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:And that is not the lowest threshold I might also add.
@Curious_George2 also keep in mind there is a metric for total amount owed that includes both loans and revolving balances. It could affect Score. That is not the threshold we're looking for of course because we have the specific reason code for revolving Balances. Just a thought because that's another thing that can cause score changes. And another thing not well understood.
Good point and good reminder. I don't recall reading any reports of people seeing the reason code for that. Before this week, I would have assumed that meant its effect on scoring is small, so it is difficult or impossible for it to crack the top four on a score under 800. (Side note: Industry scores keep showing reasons past 800. Do they stop at 850? If not, they could give us a bit more visibility into small-impact reasons.) This thread has opened my mind to the notion that some reasons might get suppressed, either conditionally or even all the time. But the Occam's razor explanation for a reason never being seen is that it's associated with a small penalty. Right?
@Curious_George2 yes typically industry options go up to 850 with Reason Codes. and yes you are correct, that is one method we use to try to determine and do troubleshooting when we don't have reason codes because they're above 800 for classic. But again it all depends on the source.
I don't know what the reason code is for that, but we can go read Cassie's Score Factor thread and try to determine if we can find it. They can hide but not from the list of all of them.
and yes if it's a very small penalty, they will hardly be seen and I think that's a very small penalty.
@Anonymous wrote:if they're from the same day bureau and Version, they should be in the same order. And it's important that they be in the correct order, since they are listed in order of precedence.
Maybe you should do a post in the technical help thread or call customer service because something doesn't add up there.
This strangeness continues to happen, so I called MF customer service. The front-line rep had no idea factor order matters (!) but was kind enough to transfer my call to a supervisor. Supervisor was perplexed, took the matter seriously, and promised to ask a tech person to look into it and get back to me. We'll see if anything comes of it.
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:if they're from the same day bureau and Version, they should be in the same order. And it's important that they be in the correct order, since they are listed in order of precedence.
Maybe you should do a post in the technical help thread or call customer service because something doesn't add up there.This strangeness continues to happen, so I called MF customer service. The front-line rep had no idea factor order matters (!) but was kind enough to transfer my call to a supervisor. Supervisor was perplexed, took the matter seriously, and promised to ask a tech person to look into it and get back to me. We'll see if anything comes of it.
@Curious_George2 very good. The supervisor obviously knew the order is significant and meaningful. Well I look forward to the results because something was definitely funky.
(PS fico documentation establishes they are listed in the order of precedence. )
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:if they're from the same day bureau and Version, they should be in the same order. And it's important that they be in the correct order, since they are listed in order of precedence.
Maybe you should do a post in the technical help thread or call customer service because something doesn't add up there.This strangeness continues to happen, so I called MF customer service. The front-line rep had no idea factor order matters (!) but was kind enough to transfer my call to a supervisor. Supervisor was perplexed, took the matter seriously, and promised to ask a tech person to look into it and get back to me. We'll see if anything comes of it.
@Curious_George2 very good. The supervisor obviously knew the order is significant and meaningful. Well I look forward to the results because something was definitely funky.
(PS fico documentation establishes they are listed in the order of precedence. )
Yeah. That came in handy. First rep was initially dismissive of that notion, so I pulled up an official FICO publication on my phone and read aloud the sentence in it that says so. That helped me get traction.
The supervisor did not need any education or persuasion on that point.