So this one's interesting and may actually help explain some things in general like why we've had trouble nailing down things like installment utilization breakpoints.
4/30/2018: 779->782 (balance change or whatever)
- Number of accounts with delinquency.
- Length of time accounts have been established.
- Length of time revolving accounts have been established
Note, only 3 reason codes at all, the deliquency was a 30D from 10/2015 so more than 2 years old (on the same JCB account that's about to go into the toilet again for similar reasons). No inquiries, no CFA on this account, pretty darned clean.
5/2/2018: 782->736
- Number of accounts with delinquency.
- Time since delinquency is too recent or unknown.
- Length of time accounts have been established.
- Length of time revolving accounts have been established.
This was with the addition of a 30D late on Transunion, resetting the most recent from 2+ years ago to right now, nothing else to really note here.
5/31/2018: 736->744
Some balance cleanups, no change in reason codes from above.
6/1/2018: 744->701 (sigh, 60D on a late fee).
- Serious delinquency.
- Time since delinquency is too recent or unknown.
- Length of time accounts have been established.
- Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high.
So the first is pretty obvious, 60D = serious deliquency, and may have shifted me into a derogatory scorecard.
The last one is where it gets interesting from a SSL perspective: my mortgage had basically one more payment (balance going down) but suddenly I went from 3 in basically a cleanish/30D bucket, to 4 and loan balances of all things.
Current mortgage is: 218,959/258,750 84.6%
So for all the debates that we've had, maybe we just had folks in different scorecards resulting in the different observations via reason codes.
That is a good point about the length of revolving history: I never had that ever reported in my prior dirty incarnation.
Interesting comment that proportion of loan balances might be not factored in higher brackets as a reason code but I recall that people with clean scorecards in that long-running SSL thread did get a boost at 9% by playing the reindeer games, so I'm not sure how it tracks... it may be the same mechanic just without a reason code, which would be weird but it's FICO.
That said, 7 years on that damned 60D late, and a 15 year mortgage, I will be at 80% long before I get out of this scorecard on TU haha. If we're both still around at that point it'll be an interesting thing to look at. Actually that's about 9 months away for me.
Sorry for the hijack but this thread reminded me of the one I made a while back about my score dropping after opening up an Alliant SSL: https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Alliant-SSL-caused-FICO-score-DROP/m-p/5...
In hindsight, I think the most straightforward explanation is I simply got moved to a different scorecard. Either a different scorecard exists for those who have (open) installment loans vs those who don't, or going from 4 to 5 open tradelines crossed FICO's threshold for a "thick" file. Or it could be both. Either way I've regained all lost ground on EQ and then some on both TU and EX after letting accounts age. I know for my file the score boost when AoYA reached 3 months was much more significant (>10 points across each CRA) than 6 months (no change on EQ and TU, +4 on EX).
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Revelate wrote:That is a good point about the length of revolving history: I never had that ever reported in my prior dirty incarnation.
Interesting comment that proportion of loan balances might be not factored in higher brackets as a reason code but I recall that people with clean scorecards in that long-running SSL thread did get a boost at 9% by playing the reindeer games, so I'm not sure how it tracks... it may be the same mechanic just without a reason code, which would be weird but it's FICO.
That said, 7 years on that damned 60D late, and a 15 year mortgage, I will be at 80% long before I get out of this scorecard on TU haha. If we're both still around at that point it'll be an interesting thing to look at. Actually that's about 9 months away for me.
I suspect loan balances are looked at with all scorecards. However, high B/L appears to carry less weight (signal strength) with clean scorecards. Conversely, I suspect revolving credit and # cards with a balance in particular, is given more weight (signal strength) with clean scorecards. The same treatment (greater weighting for clean) certainly appears to be true for aggregate revolving utilization.
Hmm.
Are we in agreement that 60D late = dirty scorecard? The reason code shifts seem to suggest that actually.
Once things settle down and sometime before my future Tesla gets financed, I'll see if I can walk the balances through 1->14 or 15 (Amex, I need to go look at my old data on that one) as I know a 30D late is still in the pretty scorecards.
Oh interestingly enough, I was looking through my 1/1/18 3B report, and sure enough on FICO 9: installment loan balances reason code on an uber clean file, it's just so hard to determine weight for FICO 8 when FICO supresses reason codes on clean files and the enhanced versions are automagically suspect for when it comes to Classic weights.
We might or maybe someone like CGD might have done some analysis on the SSL thread and see where various scorecards got what score result, but I recall seeing pretty scorecards get higher boosts with the SSL generally (arkane your AOYA is a bucketable thing in pretty scorecards) than I did when I was playing with it.