Hey Everyone!
I am new to myFICO and am trying to understand the differences between the insights from the CB's. For example, EQ states that my credit history length is Fair with AAoA of 6-0 and AoOA of 11-11. However, EX states it is Good with AAoA of 3-4 and AoOA of 10-1. TU agrees with EX with 5-10 and 9-11. How is it that my longest AAoA and AoOA are on EQ, but I have the lowest score for that section from EQ?
Thanks in advance for any response.
Starting Score: 524
Also important to note that what is displayed by various front ends may not necessarily be the data actually being used to compute a score. An oft-cited example is that closed cards may not be counted for age of oldest account or average age on the display, although FICO scores factor them for both.
Also authorized user accounts (not excluded by anti-abuse algorithms) would count for age and utilization metrics and may not be shown on a front end (or ones that are excluded may be factored into the display but not for the scoring). HELOCs would be another example. Let's say you're using $10,000 of $100,000 in revolving credit card limits and also just took out a $100k HELOC and took a draw of the full amount. A front-end on many sites will likely show that you are at 55% revolving utilization. However, the HELOC even though it is a revolving credit account is very likely not treated as such for scoring purposes and your actual overall utilization number is really 10%. On many front-ends that difference is enough to see fair or poor displayed rather than very good or excellent.
@Anonymous wrote:Those "ratings" are just fluff from the CMS. Fair/Good/Poor etc. are just words and not Fico scoring criteria... meaning moving from (say) fair to good doesn't mean someone will see a score increase. The algorithm is also slightly different for all 3 bureaus, so where a report data change on one may cause a score fluctuation, the same exact change on one of the other 2 bureaus may result in no score fluctuation.
So the insights on myFICO are fluff?? I thought the AMA from last September had shown that they are not. The rest I totally get and that CB's are different in what they consider fair, good, excellent.
So the algorithm is different between CB's? That would make sense. I was under the impression that the only thing that would be different would be what the CB's reported, not how the algorithm would weigh each piece of data from the respective CB.
Thanks so much for the info! I have to wonder at what other myths I am taking as facts. Hope you have a good weekend!!
@Anonymous wrote:
@CreditPuppy wrote:So the insights on myFICO are fluff?? I thought the AMA from last September had shown that they are not. The rest I totally get and that CB's are different in what they consider fair, good, excellent.
I mean I guess you could be the judge of that yourself. If you've got it saying "fair" to age of accounts factors that are X, then "good" to age of accounts factors [significantly] less than X, to me that's a sign of something bogus going on... so to me that constitutes fluff. It doesn't mean that each and every factor on the front end must be inaccurate, but certainly some don't seem to hold water.
Totally agree. Something seems wierd to me about that. So at this point, I don't know what to try to follow to increase my points. If the 5 factors are fluff, and reason codes lie, how do you improve your score??
@Anonymous wrote:
I agree the negative Reason Codes are good and the ingredients section of MF is good, the other portions, we don’t know.
But Birdman, that is what I was having the question about - the ingredients section of MF (called insight). The reason codes lie. For example, FICO 5 states I have a missed payment. I do not have a missed payment on any of my annual or short reports. Actually, FICO 8 reason code from EquiFax gives me a positive reason code for no missed payments.