No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
FWIW, my utilization increased from 4% to 5% and I lost 2 points on Experian. It will be dropping back to at least 4% in the next week or so; I'm curious if I'll get those points back once my next card reports for this month. To be continued.
You didn't see a score change on TU or EQ as well?
@MissLiz wrote:You didn't see a score change on TU or EQ as well?
I only use free services to track my FICO scores; EQ and TU haven't updated quite yet. Will report once they do.
5% shouldn't be a threshold but, all the major CRAs have their own tweaks to the scoring models. I was rewarded with a 1 point drop on TU Fico 8 for getting a CLI.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You'll get your points back.
@keekers wrote:FWIW, my utilization increased from 4% to 5% and I lost 2 points on Experian. It will be dropping back to at least 4% in the next week or so; I'm curious if I'll get those points back once my next card reports for this month. To be continued.
1. 2 points is not statistically significant.
2. Your EX scores don't fluctuate that often based on slight changes in aggregate utilization.
So something else caused it. But it might be undetectable.
@keekers wrote:
Update: I understand that 5% may not be a threshold but my EQ score dropped 5 points when my utilization went up to 5% and as of yesterday I got the 5 points back when it dropped back to 4%. Nothing else changed that I can tell. EX still shows the loss of 2 points and still shows 5% UTI since they aren't reflecting the July balance decrease for some reason. TU didn't budge with either movement up or back down. *SHRUGS*
In order to be able to draw such conclusions you would need to know
-the date the score changed
-the date the reported utilization changed
-the overall data from your report the day before the score changed
-the overall data from your report the of the score change
I'm pretty sure you know none of the above.
@SouthJamaica wrote:1. 2 points is not statistically significant.
I think it's worth pointing out that statistical significance has nothing to do with this. There's nothing random about FICO scoring models -- they are deterministic.
Uncontrolled variables are important considerations. This includes # of cards reporting balances, utilization levels on each card with a balance, total amount owed, scorecard assignment (this is a big one for the generalists that think what happens to me will happen to everyone) and aging factors.
You can't have an increase in aggregate utilization without an increase in total $ owed. You can't have an increase without some card showing an increased balance. Is the card with the increased balance also the one with highest utilization?
Why aren't Fico scores on all CRAs showing a score change? I do know # cards with balances can be tweaked as a factor by CRAs and impact is different among the various Fico models. Moreso on older Fico "mortgage" models. Allowed tweaking was curtailed on Fico 8 and further restricted with Fico 9.
What defines a threshold? A significant change in outcome - imo. What is significant in Fico scoring. I'd say a change of 5 or more points might qualify. If the event does not have a repeatable effect or the effect is not observed across all CRAs (showing the event) then, I wouldn't call it a general threshold.
A youngest revolving account crossing above/below 12 months is a general threshold.