Strange differences in score improvement between CRAs

[mod755]

Do some of the bureaus value/penalize revolving debt more highly than others?

I had a 688 EQ and 703 TU with 50% util on my revolving credit. I paid off half my debt last month (so it is now 25% util), and TU went up to 721 but EQ only went up to 691. There have been no other changes that I can see on either report. I have no missed payments or collections or judgements, and the only other negative item was that it said I have too many accounts with balances (I have about 12 student loans that each show up as a separate account) and that my credit history is not very long (6 years oldest, 3 avg). Why the large bump vs barely any improvement in EQ for paying off such a large percentage of my debt?

To further add to my confusion, they both improved about the same before. When I payed down from 65% util to 50% they both went up ~30 points (EQ: 658->688, TU: 672->703)

And yet another point of confusion. When at 50% util my revolving credit balances were listed in the "items hurting your score" on both reports. At 25%, it is still listed there on the TU report, but in the EQ it is listed in the "items helping your score" and says that my score was helped because my util was low. So as far as the "items helping/hurting your score" display, EQ seems like it should have increased more, yet the complete opposite happened and it hardly increased at all. 

Not really understanding this.

Message Edited by mod755 on 04-02-2009 12:20 AM

[Anonymous]

Not all CRA'S are reported exactly the same.  Meaning same TL, same basic info, but in the system with small or non-apparent differences in how it is reported held.  The reason for this is that each CRA has its own database.  No two databases are exactly the same.  They contain similar info, but are still separate systems.  Thus FICO must "interpret" the information contained, which means this will cause small fluctuations in scoring (sometimes more than small) for the same data.

Also, some creditors do not report to all CRA's this would obviously cause a difference.

Finally, there is a question as to whether the FICO's delivered at myFICO may have small "flavors" associated to the individual CRA's.

[mod755]

I understand that the reporting is sometimes different, but that's not the case here. The only change was paying off some debt on one of my credit cards. Both reports show the same new balance, but only the TU changed significantly. When both have changed by roughly the same amount previously for a similar reduction in debt, that doesn't make sense to me. It seems that after you are under 50% util, EQ doesn't give you much more benefit from reducing your revolving debt.

Message Edited by mod755 on 04-02-2009 10:38 AM

[haulingthescoreup]

And this is probably so.

All three credit bureaus (credit reporting agencies, CRA's) have commissioned their own FICO scoring formulas, according to their preferences. They all emphasize different items, giving them different weight.

My three adult kids each have identical info on their three reports. (Meaning that each kid's three reports match, not that all nine match; I can't figure a good way to express this, lol.) Despite this, all three kids have different FICO scores on all three reports, even with the same info on each one.

This is one of the things that we like to compare notes on --EQ hates lates; TU hates multiple accounts with balances, etc etc. Our version of sitting at the bar and telling lies to one another.


eta: yikes, how'd I miss that...

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 04-02-2009 06:18 PM