Testing greater than 8.99% but less than 9.00%

[Anonymous]

TLDR: Utilization less than or equal to one of 9%, 29%, 49%, 69%, or 89% works just fine to avoid the next higher interval.

[EDIT: May 6, 2020: Another supporting data point.]

AZEO with only 2 cards works really well on EQ/TU scores. This month I'm switching from that to both cards with a balance.

I was expecting the same drop in score that I gained from going to AZEO: EQ8 -19pts and TU8  -14pts. And that is exactly what I received this month with aggregate utilization greater than 8.99% at 8.999925925925926%.

That's with ($1,214.99/$13,500.00). [$1,215.00/$13,500.00 for a perfect 9.00%].

All these scores are in line with my previous reports of switching to AZEO, although I have switched scorecards on the 5-4-2 models and they now react more sensitively to utilization in the [5,9]% interval. EX 2 will now drop 'High Revolving Balances' at 5% aggregate ($539 total balances.)

Since we can't trust the front-ends to show the correct utilization (the one FICO uses), I've included all the score factor changes as well. Front-ends will always round down 9.01% to 9.00%. Anything in the (x.0, x.5) interval, really.

Even lowly VS3 got it right with no rounding errors.

CRADIS "A > 8.99" 02/10/2020	Common data No derogatories No delinquencies 1 closed loan 2 open revolving Mastercard [$2000 CL] 0 inquiry EQ 0 inquiry EX 0 inquiry TU
Previous Report 01/10/2020	AoOA: 2 yr 1mo AAoA: 1 yr 5 mo AoYA: 1 yr 1 mo Mastercard Utilization: 0% [0.00%] Visa Utilization: 6% [5.99%] Visa [$9000 CL] Aggregate Utilization: 5% [4.90%] Accounts with Balances: 1 [50%]
Current Report 02/10/2020 What changed?	AoOA: 2 yr 2 mo AAoA: 1 yr 6 mo AoYA: 1 yr 2 mo Mastercard Utilization: 9% [8.995%] Visa Utilization: 9% [9.00%] Visa [+$2500 SP CLI TO $11,500] Aggregate Utilization: 9% [8.999925925925926%] Accounts with Balances: 2 [100%]
	New statement balances recorded at all 3 CRA's between 2/1 and 2/10. Score reports from myFICO's FICO Premier subscription, Credit Karma (TU/EQ VS3), American Express MyCredit Guide (TU VS3 score factors), and Credit.com (EX VS3).	01/10	Δ	02/10
FICO 8	EQ	749	-19	730
	Short credit history, No recent loan activity
FICO 8	TU [+7 to 761 due to aging, followed by -14 to 747]	754	-7	747
[Change]	Short credit history, No recent loan activity, Too many accounts with balances, Short revolving credit history
	Short credit history, No recent loan activity, Short revolving credit history, Too many accounts with balances
FICO 8	EX	735		735
	Short credit history, No recent loan activity
FICO 5	EQ	736	-7	729
[Change]	Short credit history, High balances on non-mortgage credit accounts, Short revolving credit history, High revolving balances
	Short credit history, Short revolving credit history, High revolving balances, Heavy use of revolving credit
FICO 4	TU	740	-5	735
[Change]	Short credit history, High revolving balances, No recent loan activity, Recently opened new credit account
	Short credit history, No recent loan activity, Recently opened new credit account, High revolving balances
FICO 2	EX	734	-10	724
[Change]	Short credit history, Short revolving credit history, High revolving balances, Too many accounts with balances
	Short credit history, Short revolving credit history, No recent loan activity, Too many accounts with balances
FICO 3	EX	763	-2	761
[Change]	Short credit history, Short revolving credit history, High revolving balances, Recently opened new credit account
	Short credit history, Short revolving credit history, Recently opened new credit account, High revolving balances
VS3	EQ	747		747
VS3	TU [Due to 1 INQ aging to 2yrs]	746	+1	747
	The date that you opened your oldest account is too recent, Lack of sufficient credit history, Lack of sufficient relevant real estate account information, The total of all balances on your open accounts is too high
VS3	EX	747		747

[Anonymous]

You switched scorecards on Version 8 also when AoYR hit 1 year. Have you noticed any differences in weighting on 8?

[FireMedic1]

@AnonymousBeen following your stat threads. When are you gonna go for that 3rd card and do the same stats. Would be interesting.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
You switched scorecards on Version 8 also when AoYR hit 1 year. Have you noticed any differences in weighting on 8?

---

 Nothing besides not getting back the same number of inquiry points that I lost.

Basically, everything except the 5-4-2 models is reacting the same as tests I've done between 7 and 11mos AoYA/AoYRA.

I definitely switched scorecards on the mortgage scores. 5% is a threshold on EX 2 and it looks like there's something between 5 and 9% on EQ 5 and TU 4.

[Anonymous]

---

@FireMedic1 wrote:

@AnonymousBeen following your stat threads. When are you gonna go for that 3rd card and do the same stats. Would be interesting.

---

I'd like to see my EX 8 score at 740 before I apply for the AMEX BCE. That score only seems to move with aging, so I'm not sure how long that's going to take.

I'm just really happy that TU 8 747 is rock solid now even with both cards at 9% utilization. I wish AMEX would pull that one.

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous I think the inquiry points are pretty explicit. There’s got to be some other differences though, I would think. Unless there’s a different breakpoint on unaged/young cards.

I got my points at 12 months everywhere except Equifax and I still haven’t figured out why that is, and another member got points everywhere except for Experian, which is weird. And as you know, I lost them as soon as a revolver reported. The only other possibility is if there’s a different breakpoint for thin files.

We will learn and discover more as time and testing go on.

I wish I could figure out what the difference is. And he was going from the same scorecard I was to the same one I went to. He does not have a unaged/young file.

[Anonymous]

BTW, you are aware the presence of inquiries can change the signal strength of certain metrics? So that’s another thing that has to be excluded when comparing things that are the same in other respects. The bad thing is we don’t know exactly how that works.

TT discovered the difference it has on number of accounts/revolvers with a balance and the awards being different at the thresholds. It seems that as the number of accounts/revolvers goes up, the penalty is larger in the presence of inquiries.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
BTW, you are aware the presence of inquiries can change the signal strength of certain metrics? So that’s another thing that has to be excluded when comparing things that are the same in other respects. The bad thing is we don’t know exactly how that works.

TT discovered the difference it has on number of accounts/revolvers with a balance and the awards being different at the thresholds. It seems that as the number of accounts/revolvers goes up, the penalty is larger in the presence of inquiries.

---

Yes, I remember those posts. Good reminder, though.

I've been at 8%, 5% and 9% aggregate since AoYA/AoYR 1yr, so not really enough data there to tell if anything else is affected. The inquiry change hasn't affected the AZEO awards at all. I'll have to see if that aggregate ≤ 4% threshold (EQ 8 +3, TU 8 +1, EX 8 +3) is still there.

[Anonymous]

---

@FireMedic1 wrote:

@AnonymousBeen following your stat threads. When are you gonna go for that 3rd card and do the same stats. Would be interesting.

---

Done. AMEX BCE Instant Approval $11,500 

[Anonymous]

Congratulations @Anonymous!!! That is awesome! You did great! Wait till that 3X at 90 days!!

Are you going to go ahead and pull the trigger on a Discover before you get your penalty and round it out?