thank you,
what you just said there means more than anything anyone else had to say, you calmly explained my error, and why my wording caused a misunderstanding. You treated me like a fellow human being with respect. You are what makes this forum great.
I thought my wording was more clear than it was, since i made sure to include the datapoint that actually caused the score change. like when my youngest account went from under 3 months to over 3 months. I only included the rating part so we could indentify the thresholds at which the ratings change. Because all this data can be very daunting. and maybe its easier for new comers to understand if they think of it as " when my rating goes up, so will my score"
instead of trying to remember every little data point like youngest accounts, average age, AZEO, aggregate util, util, accounts with balances, etc etc etc. trying to remember all that for a new comer can be very daunting. I stand by my previous statement that the original intent of the thread was noble, and that the data itself was extremely valid. I just think my wording complicated things or perhaps it was taken out of context or taken too literally. I was choosing to focus on the data itself, and thats probably why i missed how my wording confused things.
What scores may be considered excellent, very good, good, not too bad, and abysmal probably varies by where you're seeing them.
I have seen multiple posts claiming that 760 is as high as you need for the best interest rates. Anything higher than that is just for bragging rights. Other places have said that comes at 780. I've seen at least a couple of people here say they got the best interest rate only because they were at 800+. I strongly suspect that this varies from one lender to another. One bank may give you their best interest rate if you have 760+ on whichever score they look at. Another bank my require 800+ for their best rate. And others may fall somewhere in between that. So different lenders and different score reporting systems have different opinions on what exactly is a great score.
EQ8 781, TU8 767, EX8 772 as of June 19agreed, but I was actually talking about the fico rating system for each separate section(payment history, amount of debt, length of credit history, etc)
Not what is considered a good score in general. Because you are correct, that is very relative, some people consider anything over 660 to be considered a good score. Where as I would not consider that to be good. Since it's well below average.
Although at this point I don't feel like it really matters anymore. I was trying to identify at what thresholds these ratings change. Even if the ratings are fluff created by fico, it still would have been a valid topic. But No one has stuck on topic to the original post.
@SRT4kid93 wrote:agreed, but I was actually talking about the fico rating system for each separate section(payment history, amount of debt, length of credit history, etc)
Not what is considered a good score in general. Because you are correct, that is very relative, some people consider anything over 660 to be considered a good score. Where as I would not consider that to be good. Since it's well below average.
Although at this point I don't feel like it really matters anymore. I was trying to identify at what thresholds these ratings change. Even if the ratings are fluff created by fico, it still would have been a valid topic. But No one has stuck on topic to the original post.
FICO doesn't have ratings.
The MyFICO.com website has 'ratings' for different factors, from Poor to Exceptional, under the 'Insights' section of its analysis of the FICO 8 scores. Those appear to be what you are talking about.
@SRT4kid93 wrote: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.
Ratings mean nothing. All the separate catagories you placed do have positive score changes for the better. Aging is the key. Newest account. Lates get older less of a sting. AAoA and so on. That comes with the higher scores. Adding the 2 cards to make it 3 revolvers helped. The closed loan if there are no other loans. Didnt help improve anything.
