1. A single card reported from 0% > 48% utilization, and I got the high credit useage negative reason code (= individual utilization) and lost 4 points, apparently for individual utilization crossing 30%, per reason code resolution. (All other cards with a balance well under 30%.)
(<3% ag.%, 48% highest ind.%, ~$3700 ag. rev. $, 8/21 accts w/ bal.)
clean/thick/mature/no new account. Reason code order with number two just making an appearance:
-loan balances
-high credit usage
-short account history
-accounts with balances
2. 9th account reports a ~$178 balance, no change.
3. 10th account reports a balance taking aggregate revolving balances over $5000, and I lose 12 more points.
(<3% ag.%, 48% highest ind.%, ~$6575 ag. rev. $, 8>10 accts. w/ bal. of 21, so 38%>48%.)
New reason code order:
-loan balances
-accounts with balances
-high revolving balances
-high credit usage
I find this quite interesting, first individual utilization was causing the second highest point loss, and then once 48% of accounts with balances reported, the number of accounts shot to number 2.
second, once at $6575, balances jumped to number 3, even above utilization, albeit individual, not aggregate.
So, it looks like there's an accounts with a balance threshold at 40%. And a balance threshold somewhere between $3700-$6575, maybe ~$5000?
And you can see the penalty for 40% of accounts with a balance is a higher loss than a ~$5000 balance, which costs more than a single card above 30% utilization.
so 4 points for a single card crossing 30%, and 12 points for crossing a number of accounts with a balance threshold and a balance threshold, it appears. (Later results indicate 6 points each metric.)
accounts with a balance includes one loan. 20 cards + 1 loan.
**Update***
10/21>9/21=+6 points, 48%>43%
9/21>10/21=-6 points, 43%>48%
So maybe not?
This considers all open accounts, 20 revolvers + 1 loan.
If it only considered revolvers, it would be 9/20>10/20 from 45% to 50%.
There are 4 closed accounts on file, so 25 total. 9/25>10/25 is 36%>40%, including closed accounts. (Plus 1 AU that's excluded.)
Edited. 12.18.20 2:04pm
Correct Ag.Util. under 5% all times. (Oldest/avg varies. Estimates above.)
RIP: 
Yes, accounts with a balance includes loans, one for me. I corrected it to 21.
(it’s actually 22, but one of those is an authorized user that does not count on version 8, so for purposes of version 8, it’s 21.)
I include loans because I can’t find any negative Reason Codes counting number of revolvers with a balance and every fico reference that I’ve read states accounts with a balance.
Edited.
Cool DP!
Any chance you can get aggregate revolving balance down to $5001 and then $4999 before anything else changes, to test the very reasonble guess that $5,000 is the threshold there? That should also reveal whether that is, as it appears, a 5 point hit (and also strongly suggest that going 40->50% of accounts with balance cost you 7 points).
@Curious_George2 wrote:Cool DP!
Any chance you can get aggregate revolving balance down to $5001 and then $4999 before anything else changes, to test the very reasonble guess that $5,000 is the threshold there? That should also reveal whether that is, as it appears, a 5 point hit (and also strongly suggest that going 40->50% of accounts with balance cost you 7 points).
@Curious_George2 I was thinking of the distinct possibility aa you explained it and unfortunately other things have already changed, but I will have to look at things and see if I can still isolate and make that happen to test, as I also am curious if that is the threshold.
i'm still above that amount and I haven't lost any points yet, but I've got a test set up, so I have to see if I can work that in there somehow. I definitely am curious myself as well!
I haven't had this many accounts report a balance in I don't know how long, but I just switched to this new scorecard, so I figured I'd take the number up and down and watch it and see what happens.
@BrutalBodyShots wrote:Has $5000 in reported revolving balances become a potential threshold point worthy of discussion? I haven't seen it mentioned in the past.
@BrutalBodyShots that's because many people believed balance thresholds did not exist. As a result, it doesn't appear many people have been cataloging those thresholds, so we don't have a list, unfortunately.
That's one of the things that we are trying to observe and gather data points on now. All we have is a guess of round numbers and maybe the dollar amounts listed in the estimator; however I believe that includes revolving and non-mortgage loans.
Balance thresholds are real, although comparatively they seem to be worth less than aggregate utilization thresholds. I think there's a link to one found at $147 in the Primer.
I have taken to using the % symbol to indicate utilization since it's always a percentage, the $ symbol to indicate balances since they are always dollar amounts, the ^ symbol to indicate average, because I didn't see any other symbol that seemed intuitive and # obviously is number.
Tom Quinn's response in post 66 of the AMA thread says that balances matter, but they matter less than utilization percentages. To my mind, aggregate balance is much more likely to predict a consumer's risk than individual account balances, so I just assumed Tom meant aggregate balance.
I agree with you that testing $5k, or any other specific number, is relatively simple. You, personally, would first have to climb down off the 850 mountaintop to do any useful testing, right? Buffers and all that.
Didn't someone find a likely threshold at $500 aggregate balance this past summer? Was it @CassieCard? Of course, these thresholds could be different on different scorecards.