@sarge12 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:3. I would advise someone struggling to improve their credit scores to work on the assumption that 19%, 29%, 39%, 49%, etc are thresholds in aggregate revolving utilization, but I do not know that they are, or even believe that they are. I'm sure that 34% is better than 39% and worse than 29%.
I believe there is more to this story as well, based on one of the questions the FICO Score Estimator asks (this is not the SIMULATOR):
I don't think that's obfuscation. Also, we know there is a reason code related to 'Amount owed' on FICO 8, and that probably carries some more weight as balances increase above what most people normally report.
For example, 1% of a $1 million total credit line is $10,000, and that's definitely above the $6K or so average balance carried on cards (as recorded by CFPB credit survey).
Yes but
(1) aren't you one of the people who decry the "front end" codes as having nothing to do with the real FICO algorithms?
If you mean the utilization calculation, definitely. It's using the standard midpoint rounding of most programming languages where FICO is using a simple ceiling function. So I would never use the front-end calculation.
But that has nothing to do with the Estimator either.
(2) how do you know the score estimator is more valid than the demonstrably invalid score simulators?
I give it much more credibility due to the way that FICO has promoted it for over a decade. It's a pretty good range estimator for profiles around 5yrs or less in age, from what I and others have experienced.
They were specific with those percentages for a reason.
(3) why would the score estimator be more valid than the score simulator?
Generally speaking, there is no reason I can point to besides what I mentioned above about my own experience and others below 5yrs total history.
(4) do you know the source of the coders' percentages?
Of course not. I just think there may be more to those percentages from FICO itself then other sources. It always needs testing to confirm.
I know for a fact I have a 5% threshold on my scorecard - I've cross it 9 times now, always losing the same EQ 8 -3, TU 8 -1, EX 8 -3 every time I am above 4.00% actual aggregate utilization - ceiling, not front-end midpoint.
There is still the very real liklihood that utilization percentages might differ among each individuals scorecards. Is 80% utilization treated the same for someone with 3 credit cards with the limit of 500 each, as the same 80% for the individual with 20 cards averaging 10,000 dollars credit limit each? I doubt it. That is the issue with assumptions based on observing only your own credit profile.
Yes, that is why I usually make it clear that it's on my scorecard.
I'm very familiar with the way these scorecards are set in the normal course of logistic regression, but that isn't going to help me figure out much more than anyone else, because I don't have access to the data set that FICO used.
They've been collecting individual profile data from many sources for decades, and they have found some strong predictors for the 'bads' from it.
My total credit history is under 3 years, and I am certain that places me in a scorecard segment that has a higher percentage of bads than the segment that includes people with 10-12 years of history.
People getting their first cards and getting into trouble with it will probably show increasing utilization, new inquiries, and various lates in the lead up to default. I'm in that same bin with them, so it's understandable why I lose more points for inquiries (-11 for 2 inqs) and what seems like relatively minor changes in utilization (above $1000 or something smaller like 4% to 5% aggregate change).
@Anonymous wrote:@sarge12 I agree with almost everything you said, but version 9 does not have utilisation memory, that doesn't come until version 10T.
and keep in mind aging happens on the first, so we can discriminate as long as a first was not crossed.
@Anonymous welcome, one option you have is to do as suggested and ask for an off cycle update, but before you go to the car dealer you pull your own scores and see what they are, then you know whether it's worth having them pull them or not.
I was unsure which version first uses historical utilization. I also learned something new, because I had no idea that aging updated on a set day of the month. In my case, it matters very little, because my historical utilization has been below 4% since at least 2010. I joined this forum in 2012, I think, and my profile has been pristine since 2010. Between 2010 and 2012, it was a coincidence that I was handeling my credit in a way that was best for my score. I did not have a clue what the ingedients in a credit score consisted of. After 2012, I learned what is in the score. My continued habits to maximize my scores has a lot to do with this forum.
I can't really say I ever actually rebuilt my credit. When I declared a chapter 7 in 1996, I just continued to pay my mortgage, without ever knowing my credit score. I had no other debt period from 1996 to 2010. In 2010 a close friend from work and I were looking at Honda Goldwings. I had a Suzuki Intruder then. He tried to convince me to get a Goldwing, but I told him my credit was bad. He replied that I should let them check my credit, so I did. It was over 800, but afterwards dropped some due to the Goldwing and opening credit cards. Here is what it has been on Transunion ever since joining this group. Keep in mind I have been adding 2-3 credit cards every 12-18 months since. I have also posted my EQ and EX score timelines in the high acheivers thread, but only since 2014 with less data points. I posted them here:::
