Hey guys,
i wanted to start a thread for some of the know thresholds for ficos rating system (poor, fair, good, very good, exceptional)
as you know each section gets a rating, and while these ratings may seem silly, these ratings greatly impact your score. Whether the affect is directly because of the rating or indirectly I don't know, but I know it has an impact. To give you an idea I have also added my score changes associated with the ratings changes, keep in mind these score changes are specific to my profile.
here are some of the thresholds I have learned recently, feel free to add your own experiences
payment history-
was at good rating- 1 late payment and 50% of accounts paid as agreed
was improved to very good rating when my accounts paid as agreed went from 50% to 75%. Resulted in about 15/20 point increase across the board.
amount of new credit:
Was at fair rating- 2 new accounts in the past year, with newest account under 3 months of age
Improved to good rating once newest account hit 3 months, resulting in increase of about 10 points across all 3 cra's
amount of debt:
Was at very good rating- 4% aggregate utilization ratio, 1/1 accounts with balances
improved to exceptional rating once I added 2 additional accounts and made sure I did AZEO, making totals 1/3 accounts with balances and 1% aggregate utilization ratio. Resulted in about 15/20 point gain
credit age:
good rating- age of oldest account over 7 years, average age of accounts over 4 years
decreased to fair rating once I dropped to 2 years 7 months average age of accounts. So 3 or 4 years average age seems to be the thresholds to go from fair to good. Fair to good change resulted in 10 point gain for me.
credit mix
was at good rating with 1 open credit card and 1 closed auto loan, improved to very good after adding 2 additional credit cards.
Like trying to put 10-scale numbers on terms, what is "nice", "hot" , "interesting".
7, 9, 8 or 6, 10, 7. 
Yes agreed. The score increases were because of the data that caused the rating to change not because of the rating change itself. Example- the fact that my youngest account hit 3 months was the reason for the score change, but this also happened to be a threshold to change your "amount of new credit" from fair to good. Or when my newest accounts got enough age behind them, they became "accounts paid as agreed", improving my payment history from good to very good.
So, now people know that when their newest account hits 3 months, they can expect a score increase, and they now know that it's because their amount of new credit improved. They no longer have to guess as to why the score improvement occurred.
like I said, the ratings themselves maybe not be "directly affecting the score" but they are certainly indirectly affecting the scores and there is absolutely a correlation between your rating and your score.
When my ratings went up so did my score, again, not directly because of the ratings, but that was not the point of this, the point was to try to pinpoint known thresholds in which your ratings change, to try to give people an idea as to when their score may increase and by how much.
because again, there is a correlation. That's all I was trying to point out.
@Wandering wrote:The eye-candy fluff "rating system" has absolutely no bearing on your fico scores, metrics, or anything. Not directly and not indirectly. It is a simple attempt to give simple people an idea of where their metrics stand and there is absolutely no way that any amount of score points could be assigned to the "fluffy feel good" system.
It is on par with a "smiley face rating system"
And since you ignore what everyone tells you and you will try yet again to back up your incorrect understanding of anything, I would like you to spend some time googling for answers to this question of yours. You will find nothing about it, and that is because (reread this reply from the beginning.)
+1
Agreed
@FlaDude wrote:These ratings are not part of FICO scoring. They are displayed by myFICO and other portals to give you an idea how you stand in each of those categories and are based on whatever criteria each portal uses.
+1
Agreed
@Wandering wrote:The eye-candy fluff "rating system" has absolutely no bearing on your fico scores, metrics, or anything. Not directly and not indirectly. It is a simple attempt to give simple people an idea of where their metrics stand and there is absolutely no way that any amount of score points could be assigned to the "fluffy feel good" system.
It is on par with a "smiley face rating system"
And since you ignore what everyone tells you and you will try yet again to back up your incorrect understanding of anything, I would like you to spend some time googling for answers to this question of yours. You will find nothing about it, and that is because (reread this reply from the beginning.)
@Kforce @SouthJamaica @Wandering
@Wandering Im not trying to back up my misunderstanding and I'm also not misunderstanding anything. I NEVER said the rating directly impacts the score, only that a correlation exists between the two. When my ratings improving, so did my scores. That is an undeniable fact. Not a misunderstanding. On my very first post in this thread you will notice that not only did i talk about the rating change, but i noted the actual changes that caused the rating change. Like when my newest account went from under 3 months to over, that is obviously the cause for the score change. Not the rating change, never the less, when 1 went up, so did the other. Correlation.
But honestly my wording doesn't matter. The truth is, the fico system is completely unknown. None of us know the secrets.
ALL I SAID
was that when my rating went up, so did my score. That proves that there is a correlation between the two. The scores do not need to be directly affected by the rating in order for a correlation to exist.
Correlation means that there is a relationship between 2 things. It doesn't define the relationship, nor the severity of said relationship. Direct or indirect, etc.
anyways, i want to say that I'm not mad. I was trying to have an intellectual conversation with you until you went on and attacked and bullied me over something that did not exist.
@Cblough93 wrote:@Kforce @SouthJamaica @Wandering
@Wandering Im not trying to back up my misunderstanding and I'm also not misunderstanding anything. I NEVER said the rating directly impacts the score, only that a correlation exists between the two. When my ratings improving, so did my scores. That is an undeniable fact. Not a misunderstanding. On my very first post in this thread you will notice that not only did i talk about the rating change, but i noted the actual changes that caused the rating change. Like when my newest account went from under 3 months to over, that is obviously the cause for the score change. Not the rating change, never the less, when 1 went up, so did the other. Correlation.
But honestly my wording doesn't matter. The truth is, the fico system is completely unknown. None of us know the secrets. So, why are you trying to make other people feel stupid when you actually have no idea. If you were genuinely trying to help me understand that would be one thing. But your post contributed nothing. The sole purpose of your post was to attack me and trying to make me feel stupid. Especially because you are putting words in my mouth.
You have failed to read what I said and therefore Mis interpreted what I said, probably because you skimmed what I said, without actually reading it. I can't blame you for that, I tend to type a lot. I would probably skim too. But if you are going to skim what I read, then you cannot judge me for your lack of understanding. If you took the time to read what I actually said. You would feel foolish
ALL I SAID
was that when my rating went up, so did my score. That proves that there is a correlation between the two. The scores do not need to be directly affected by the rating in order for a correlation to exist.
Correlation means that there is a relationship between 2 things. It doesn't define the relationship, nor the severity of said relationship. Direct or indirect, etc.
There's a correlation between children who were abused and those same children going on to abuse their kids. Does that 100% mean that the abuse they went through 100% made them go on to abuse their kids? No, it's possible that is the case, but a correlation between the two does not mean that is definitely what's happening.
it could have been any number of things that happened as a result of the abuse, not the abuse itself. Maybe the abuse the person suffered cause them to think that's how parents are supposed to act, and so that's what they did. Maybe the abuse made them have no self confidence in themselves, and hate themselves. So they want to hurt others to make themselves feel better.
anyways, i want to say that I'm not mad. I was trying to have an intellectual conversation with you until you went on and attacked and bullied me over something that did not exist.
this thread is now completely ruined. By not reading what I actually said, you contributed to the spread of misinformation about what this thread was actually about. It was meant to be a post about the thresholds between the ratings and so that people could read it and gain insight, and it could have been a really good place for information. and now when someone comes across this thread, they will see your comment, and assume exactly what you assumed. Making this thread practically dead before it ever got started. Shame.
I can assure you that I read, and reread, your posts carefully.