[Update] UTI 9% --> 10% = 9 point drop. But what is 10%?

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:
I haven't found number of accounts with balances to be a big mover of my FICO 8 score, just the FICO 2 score.

Everything is amplified on my thin-file score card / bucket. You're playing in a whole different league! At EX, I lost 19 points just from 1 new inquiry in December when applying for my second card.

I'm expecting to lose 15 points this month at EQ, TU, and EX due to individual card utilization changes from 2%/0% to 7%/7%, and aggregate utilization from 1% to 7%.

My EX FICO 2 was 727 and I wouldn't be surprised if I lost 30 points from those changes, on this particular thin-file score card.

BTW, in comparing the "Credit Summary" page and the "Credit Report" page, I can see that when I switch to an older report, the Credit Report page goes back to the older report's data, while the Credit Summary page does not, and is therefore useless from a historical perspective.

You can still use the 'Credit Reports' -> Summary tab (shown below) for the archived reports. It's all the same data, just in a different format:

[NRB525]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

@NRB525 wrote:
SJ, when I have inconsistencies in my interpretation of what the MyFICO alerts are tellling me, it is usually some mistake or misunderstanding on my side. The algorithm and presentation of these data should be consistent.

---

As I have repeatedly stated, my observations are based solely on daily changes in scores & data on experian.com, and have nothing to do with MyFICO.

---

That wasn’t actually my point  Data source isn’t the point. 

If I see inconsistency in how I view the data, often times it is due to me not getting everything lined up the same.  

Since the presented percentages are rounded, where are the specific percentage calculations coming from?  Does EX provide aggregate debt and aggregate limits dollar values? Or is this something you are adding / viewing from different places?

I get that you see inconsistency, but not many of us have a view to that EX presentation, so it’s difficult to diagnose without a lot more info.  

[Anonymous]

I am very impressed by everything regarding these intervals. I have a question though. How does this apply in the framework of aging? I assume there are intervals there. Is well as the rounding the same?

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

@NRB525 wrote:
SJ, when I have inconsistencies in my interpretation of what the MyFICO alerts are tellling me, it is usually some mistake or misunderstanding on my side. The algorithm and presentation of these data should be consistent.

---

As I have repeatedly stated, my observations are based solely on daily changes in scores & data on experian.com, and have nothing to do with MyFICO.

@NRB525 , the 2 screen snips below may clear up some confusion about the credit alert differences between myFICO and Experian CreditWorks.  Experian's credit alerts are more granular than myFICO.

For example, look at the myFICO 3B+ alerts below for updates to my Experian score on 01/04/2019.

myFICO only shows the final score from the changes (-30 points in this instance), but Experian shows me that the score actually decreased 81 points and then increased 51 points, and I can tell from other Experian alerts what was most likely to have caused each of those changes: -81 for loan closing, +51 for adding my first revolving account.

---

Experian CreditWorks Premium credit alerts shown below:

[Anonymous]

---

@NRB525 wrote:

Since the presented percentages are rounded, where are the specific percentage calculations coming from?  Does EX provide aggregate debt and aggregate limits dollar values? Or is this something you are adding / viewing from different places?

I get that you see inconsistency, but not many of us have a view to that EX presentation, so it’s difficult to diagnose without a lot more info.  

---

@NRB525 , this is what it looks like on Experian's website:

In the 'Credit Reports -> Summary' section, I saw this on my own report from last month:

And from the 'FICO Score 8 -> Score Ingredients' section:

---

I am positive that some parts of the presentation software at Experian are using the default rounding method for whatever programming language was used to generate the webpage. That rounding method is usually 'round half away from zero' (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Round_half_away_from_zero ).

So sometimes the way that FICO rounds and the way the presentation software rounds can look the same - 8.50 will be rounded to 9 in both.

But any value greater than 8 and less than 8.50 will most likely be 8 on the presentation side and 9 with FICO.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I am very impressed by everything regarding these intervals. I have a question though. How does this apply in the framework of aging? I assume there are intervals there. Is well as the rounding the same?

---

I applied for one of my credit cards on December 23rd, 2018, which was approved right away, and all the credit score monitoring services are counting it as being opened from December 1, 2018. My Experian report from yesterday shows the age of my youngest account as 2 months now, even though the account was opened 43 days ago. It's as if FICO is using a floor function for the day of the month.

There are ageing intervals for Age of Oldest Account and Average Age of Accounts, but I'm not sure what the consensus is on Age of Youngest Account on a thin-file score card like mine.

I need to read up on that myself. Cut and paste this into Google search:

site:ficoforums.myfico.com age breakpoint threshold datapoint

[Anonymous]

Thank you, I’m off to the races. And you also made me realize the breakpoints might not be the same for different scorecards. I had not even considered that!

Thank you for your input. And I’m enjoying following your thread!

[NRB525]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

Two things just happened. One is not surprising. The other surprises me but probably won't surprise @Anonymous

Not surprising:

In EX report, 1 account went from zero to 23%, causing aggregate utilization to go from rounded 9% to rounded 10%. 

FICO 8 -9

Just confirms that >9% is not great.

Surprising (to me at least):

You may ask what were the actual percentages which EX rounded to 9% and 10%.

8.93 % = 9%

9.35% = 10%

This surprises me because until today I had observed EX rounding the percentages up and down, contradicting @Anonymous 's theory that it always rounds up.

I'm going to have to watch it more closely now.

Update 2/2/19 9:43 PM

I just noticed that there are different rounded percentages on different pages.

On the tab headed "Credit Summary", 9.35% has been rounded up to 10%.

On the tab headed "Credit Report", it's rounded down to 9%.

Update 2/3/19

When one account dropped from 45% to below 1%, causing aggregate utilization to drop from 9.35% to 8.17%, the 9 points came back in FICO 8.

Experian rounded 8.17% down to 8%, on both the Credit Report and Credit Summary pages.

So on one page it was a drop from 10% to 8%; on another it was a drop from 9% to 8%.

---

Thanks for the updates, but man, that is a lot of noise in there to try to attribute anything to one factor.

Congrats on the score increase That's about the sum of it.

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

Update 2/3/19

When one account dropped from 45% to below 1%, causing aggregate utilization to drop from 9.35% to 8.17%, the 9 points came back in FICO 8.

Experian rounded 8.17% down to 8%, on both the Credit Report and Credit Summary pages.

So on one page it was a drop from 10% to 8%; on another it was a drop from 9% to 8%.

---

I just got a myFICO sms alert to a balance change. The rounding they use on the alerts isn't even the typical 'round half away from zero', it's more like a truncation or floor function:

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

So sometimes the way that FICO rounds and the way the presentation software rounds can look the same - 8.50 will be rounded to 9 in both.

But any value greater than 8 and less than 8.50 will most likely be 8 on the presentation side and 9 with FICO.

---

Saying that there's a threshold at 10%, and that ceil(9.00000001) == 10... is just a roundabout way of saying that the threshold is at 9.0̅%, with the only question there being >9.0̅% or >=9.0̅%.

Since the results of ceil() "rounding" are functionally equivalent to a threshold-1... the real question is whether it's a simple threshold, as "conventional wisdom" tends to have it, or as SJ suggests, actual up/down rounding (of any sort, but if used, most likely controlled by the language/tools originally used to implement the scoring model).

I'd suggest that the 0.5% or 1% possible difference in these cases is not meaningful from a scoring model development perspective, and most people (at least most people who are aware of utilization thresholds) wouldn't try to skate quite so close to the edge on these percentages that it would matter, anyway.  (Present company excluded, of course, but you fine people are doing this for research purposes...)