Was I just "re-bucketed"?

[RobertEG]

I doubt that you have ever heard anyone from FairIsaac tell you that 30-day lates no longer count after 2 years, or any set period of time, until they drop at 7 years. 60-day lates are more serious, and hurt more. 

I have seen many anecdotal statements that 60-day lates count the same as 30-day lates after 2 years, but again no FICO "expert" knows this for sure, other than Fair Isaac, and they have never said this, to my knowledge.

I dont doubt that the effect of 30-day lates, and to a lesser effect, 60-day lates, drop significantly after two years, for FICO is basically a risk-analysis for a two year projection of timely payment probabilbity.

But no "expert" can tell you precisely the affect.

[haulingthescoreup]

Barry has said that 60's count like 30's after two years, and that if your worst derog was a sixty, you'd be in the serious derog bucket for the first two years, and then you'd come out of it. Does he count?

Nevertheless, 30's (and 60's acting like 30's) do continue to hurt as long as they're there. It's just that they fade over time, and they're pretty minimal once they're getting ready to fall off.

And again, this is completely separate from what a lender might think.

[flintlockjo]

I guess I must have been re-bucketed then. My BK finally fell off and the only bad thing left is a 30 day late that is almost 6 yrs old. I ended up with a 15 point drop in my score. I wish that late would magically go away. Hopefully my score will go back up.

Flint

[XAVIERSMAMA]

Can someone please explain bucketing to me?  What are the buckets?

[haulingthescoreup]

---

XAVIERSMAMA wrote:

Can someone please explain bucketing to me?  What are the buckets?

---

OK, first of all, the idea behind score buckets (scorecards) is that you are clumped with other consumers who have similar credit histories/ profiles to yours. This is so that the FICO scoring formula can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

If you were 21 years old, with three years overall credit history, and 2 years AAoA, 12% revolving util, with one late from 3 years ago, you would look pretty pitiful compared to someone with 27 years of history reporting, an AA0A of 15 years, 1% util, and squeaky clean history, at last within the last seven years that show on the reports. But if you're compared with other consumers with 3 years oldest history and 2 years AAoA, but they have crazy high util and late payments showing, and maybe a couple of charged-off cards, you're going to look pretty good to potential lenders, and your FICO scores will reflect this. Score bucketing allows you to be compared to others with similar credit profiles, to see how you compare with your peers.

We don't know the exact buckets. We do know that there are 2 negative buckets: one for serious derogs (90 days or more late, a charge-off, a collection, a 60-day late that is less than two years old) OR for public records (BK's, garnishments, foreclosures, tax liens) OR for having both. (I'm not clear on this; it's possible that a public record trumps a serious derogatory.) The other buckets are probably determined by the age of your credit: your oldest account on your reports, your AAoA, or some combo of both.

You can go crazy worrying about score buckets and what might happen to you as you advance in your usage of credit. Unless you're heading for a specific major credit event, like apping for a mortgage, I would advise letting it go. Just keep being responsible with the credit you have, and accept that occasionally your score will go wacko but recover quickly. It's an area over which we don't have a lot of control, and when it comes to this sort of thing, your best bet is to just let it go.

[Anonymous]

Do you have a clear idea of what distinguishes between the two negative scoring buckets? Presumptively one is worse that the other and something puts you in one of them other of them.

[haulingthescoreup]

I have two guesses, and I go back and forth between them:

If you have either a public record OR a serious late/ derog (90+late, collection, charge-off), the public record is worse.

Alternatively, one or the other are the same, but having both is worse.

I keep seeing indications pointing to one theory, and then someone posts something that makes me think the other.

Completely off the top of my head, I would think that a public record was worse. If someone screwed up so badly that they were actually taken to court, involving attorney fees by the lender/ collector that "feels" like a worse problem than big lates/ charge-offs/ collections, marked by annoying and insulting phone calls. But the scoring formula is driven by statistical sampling, not by my intuition, so I have absolutely no faith in that feeling.

But we do know that there are only two negative score buckets, so it's not like it would be serious derog, then public record, then both.

[Anonymous]

What do you suppose the highest FICO score obtainable is while residing in a negative bucket?

From my own experience I saw 730 on EX when I was reporting a 37 year history (12FEB2009). Now that my ancient SL had fallen into the bit bucket I am down to 10 years history, a reduced AAoA and no idea what my FICO is! I'm sure it is higher than EQ, which is 703 right now and I don't really know why it is that low. I am going to have to wait until I get my next SW alert for a new score. That should be soon as I have recently done some things to trigger an alert. (It's been about two months since I had one. It's sad when the primary way to trigger an alert is to allow an increased balance on a card to report! The BT I did should do the trick.)

[Anonymous]

i had 8 medical collections showing on my equifax report with a score of 585. with the simulator showing a 2 year growth from 680-702. i was able to get 2 of the collections removed, and when i purchased an updated report, my score dropped to a 572, but the simulator showed a 2 year growth of 702-742.  at the time nothing was different on either report other than the lack of 2 paid collections.  is that a rebucket? i dont know.

that 585.572 scores were with a overdraft credit line showing 498 of 500 used. it said paying that down to o would jump my score to 636-680.  i just paid half the balance off, and will pull my score again once i get the rest of it paid down next month.

my fear is getting my scores up enough to get a better morgage rate, and the possibilty to get a decent credit card to show some revolving credit in the next 6-8 months, only to have some of the collections drop off in 2010 along with my score, then having to wait again for them to build back up .

i dont want to be compared to the good credit people, i want to be compared to the baddies like me, yet with a higher score. lol

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

i had 8 medical collections showing on my equifax report with a score of 585. with the simulator showing a 2 year growth from 680-702. i was able to get 2 of the collections removed, and when i purchased an updated report, my score dropped to a 572, but the simulator showed a 2 year growth of 702-742.  at the time nothing was different on either report other than the lack of 2 paid collections.  is that a rebucket? No! i dont know.

that 585.572 scores were with a overdraft credit line showing 498 of 500 used. it said paying that down to o would jump my score to 636-680.  i just paid half the balance off, and will pull my score again once i get the rest of it paid down next month. You have UTIL issues.

my fear is getting my scores up enough to get a better morgage rate, and the possibilty to get a decent credit card to show some revolving credit in the next 6-8 months, only to have some of the collections drop off in 2010 along with my score, then having to wait again for them to build back up .

i dont want to be compared to the good credit people, i want to be compared to the baddies like me, yet with a higher score. lol

---

You will be in a negative scoring bucket until the last baddie is gone. You need to work on your UTIL and attempt to have the CA's legitimately removed until your report is clean. There is no reason not to exercise control over those things you can influence now!