@Revelate wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:My AMEX charge card is lumped in with revolving credit cards for aggregate charges used to calculate overall UT%. Also, although it is a NPSL card, total credit limit for all cards includes the AMEX "high limit" value in the total.
Fico model UT% is specifically card related both on a per card basis and all cards combined. If charge cards have a CL, that is included on total credit limit. If not (like my AMEX) high limit is used. Some credit cards may be NPSL - not sure if those are ignored in the calculation or added based on high limit.
My credit report does include a couple other metrics as follows:
1) Balance to loan ratio for installment loans (I only have a mortgage but, overall balance to total loan is a metric in scoring)
2) Aggregate debt to credit ratio. This is (total of CC balances + loan balances)/(total CC credit limits + total of installment loan amounts)
Um, we've seen absolutely zero support for that
.
1) Where did you get the credit report
2) How are you certain it's calculating as you say?
Fact is the presentation on a credit report is not reference for the FICO algorithm, unfortunately. The only thing that is applicable is the "reasons your score ain't higher" part, everything else is 3rd party presentation fluff.
Revolving and installment utilization are utterly seperate in the FICO models; if they weren't if nothing else I wouldn't have taken such a large hit on my mortgage reporting since my revolving limits would've easily gotten me under the 80% (or 70%) line if it was a summation across everything... but it isn't. Tons of other anecdotal evidence to support that posted every week regarding people's score drops refinancing cars and similar.
Yes your Equifax credit REPORT will include this metric in their summary table of accounts. Don't recall mentioning that this metric was used in scoring. I do recall mentioning overall balance on installment loans to total loan amount is a scoring metric. Nonetheless, I can see how what I wrote could be misinterpreted.
Please re-read what I wrote. Although these metrics may be utterly separate in scoring they are are combined in the credit report summary as shown below.
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:My AMEX charge card is lumped in with revolving credit cards for aggregate charges used to calculate overall UT%. Also, although it is a NPSL card, total credit limit for all cards includes the AMEX "high limit" value in the total.
Fico model UT% is specifically card related both on a per card basis and all cards combined. If charge cards have a CL, that is included on total credit limit. If not (like my AMEX) high limit is used. Some credit cards may be NPSL - not sure if those are ignored in the calculation or added based on high limit.
My credit report does include a couple other metrics as follows:
1) Balance to loan ratio for installment loans (I only have a mortgage but, overall balance to total loan is a metric in scoring)
2) Aggregate debt to credit ratio. This is (total of CC balances + loan balances)/(total CC credit limits + total of installment loan amounts)
Um, we've seen absolutely zero support for that
1) Where did you get the credit report
2) How are you certain it's calculating as you say?
Fact is the presentation on a credit report is not reference for the FICO algorithm, unfortunately. The only thing that is applicable is the "reasons your score ain't higher" part, everything else is 3rd party presentation fluff.
Revolving and installment utilization are utterly seperate in the FICO models; if they weren't if nothing else I wouldn't have taken such a large hit on my mortgage reporting since my revolving limits would've easily gotten me under the 80% (or 70%) line if it was a summation across everything... but it isn't. Tons of other anecdotal evidence to support that posted every week regarding people's score drops refinancing cars and similar.
Yes your Equifax credit REPORT will include this metric in their summary table of accounts. Don't recall mentioning that this metric was used in scoring. I do recall mentioning overall balance on installment loans to total loan amount is a scoring metric. Nonetheless, I can see how what I wrote could be misinterpreted.
Please re-read what I wrote. Although these metrics may be utterly separate in scoring they are are combined in the credit report summary as shown below.
I will state it again, the ONLY things reference on that report as far as FICO is concerned are:
1) The score
2) The reasons your score isn't higher (aka FICO reason codes)
That's it. Everything else is presentation, no better than Credit Karma. Revolving and installment utilization are utterly seperate calculations under FICO 8, FICO 04, and FICO 98. FICO NextGen is probably similar, FICO 9 is unknown at this time.
http://www.scoreinfo.org/overview-of-fico-scores/fico-score-factors-guide/
Fico mortgage reason codes pasted below (from Credco) - https://www.credco.com/assets/pdfs/datasheets/FICO-booklet.pdf
Read the forums and the volumes of data on both revolving and installment utilization.
Yes the reason codes are short hand, that does not mean the calculations aren't seperate. I do not mean to be argumentative but this is not the first time there's been someone trumpteting a document or book or similar that is flat out wrong when it comes to all of the data collected on the algorithm.
You will find the same stated on any of the credit-oriented forums.
For that matter, FICO 04 doesn't give a tinker's damn about installment utilization; it doesn't move at all with changes in installment loan balance, which is arguably why the credco document isn't going to get them sued: it's all revolving utilization in FICO 04.
@Revelate wrote:For that matter, FICO 04 doesn't give a tinker's damn about installment utilization; it doesn't move at all with changes in installment loan balance, which is arguably why the credco document isn't going to get them sued: it's all revolving utilization in FICO 04.
Any reason why my FICO 04 score factors reference installment utilization?
Of course, EQ also references my revolving utilization as a factor which is less than 1%!
The score data in the thread, neither TU nor EQ 04 moved with any change throughout the entire set of data:
You can pick whatever you want out of it, but it doesn't move. What I would suggest is they recycled the reason codes from 98 where installment utilization absolutely does make a difference. My theory anyway.
Also your scores are so pretty now it's pretty much irrelevant as to what they say.