@iv wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:2. A drop in Risk Factor from 5% and 13% to 2% across the board
That's an effect, not a cause.
Moving up to a new score range causes the system to display the related risk of default associated with that score range.
It's not a factor in the score moving up, just a displayed side effect of the fact that it DID move.
See the assoicated chart from MyFICO:
Thanks IV! Well...that makes sense. The 30-35 points increase put me in a different score range which cause me to be view "less risky". Got it! 
Care to shed some light on #4? 
@Anonymous wrote:Thanks IV! Well...that makes sense. The 30-35 points increase put me in a different score range which cause me to be view "less risky". Got it!
Care to shed some light on #4?
That's the % of Accounts Paid as Agreed question?
I don't have direct experience on that topic (no late payments), but as far as I know, that % is not directly a scoring factor, just an informational display.
In other words, the effect of having 5 postive accounts and one with a 30-day late is exactly the same as having 10 postive accounts and the same 30-day late. (To the best of my knowledge, anyway. Could be wrong.... not something I'm going to go test!)
As for your overall question:
Are you sure that the initial reporting of your installment loan, and the current reporting of your installment loan are the same?
Sometimes the first report of a tradeline is incomplete (or in this case, could have reported at 100% util), and the following month's update could provide full data (or your paid-down amount), and thus the full scoring impact. In other words, was the initlal gain just from credit mix, and the following gain from credit mix + low installment util?
@iv wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Thanks IV! Well...that makes sense. The 30-35 points increase put me in a different score range which cause me to be view "less risky". Got it!
Care to shed some light on #4?
That's the % of Accounts Paid as Agreed question?
Yes.
I don't have direct experience on that topic (no late payments), but as far as I know, that % is not directly a scoring factor, just an informational display.
In other words, the effect of having 5 postive accounts and one with a 30-day late is exactly the same as having 10 postive accounts and the same 30-day late. (To the best of my knowledge, anyway. Could be wrong.... not something I'm going to go test!)
Totally makes sense and agrees with what I am seeing as I have had no lates or negatives before or after the three 30-day lates I mentioned earlier. So the percentage just changed based on the increase of accounts reporting.
As for your overall question:
Are you sure that the initial reporting of your installment loan, and the current reporting of your installment loan are the same?
Yes, I am sure. In fact, the intial TU 17pt increase, EQ 18pt increase, and EX 20pt increase showed in Jan 8th-12th alerts not only indicated a new account added but also contained the balance of $42 of $500 (the amount I paid it down to before the first due date) in the same alerts (one alert for each CB, received a few days apart).
Sometimes the first report of a tradeline is incomplete (or in this case, could have reported at 100% util), and the following month's update could provide full data (or your paid-down amount), and thus the full scoring impact. In other words, was the initlal gain just from credit mix, and the following gain from credit mix + low installment util?
From best I can tell and I feel pretty sure of this, the initial gain was from the credit mix + the low installment util. I feel 100% about this as the balance of the Alliant account on the February 2017 3B report is still $42 - as I did not make any more payments on it since the initial payment. So the amount reported in the mid-Jan alerts is the same amount that was reported in the Feb 3B report - namely $42.
[edited} Oops... I lied. I did make a small payment to test an auto payment. That payment has not yet reported from January's activity. This further confirms that the mid-January scores reflect the credit mix + initial the low util. Otherwise, the balance on February report would be $40 not $42.
@Anonymous wrote:BBS, thank you for answering this! Now I know my file is considered a old/thick file. And even before adding the accounts, it would have been considered so.
Again, thanks!
I think this question is a bit tougher to answer and there's more room for debate on it. Unlike thickness which is only comprised of one variable, number of accounts, age is comprised of 2 or even 3 variables: AAoA, AoOA and AoYA. I would think most wouldn't really consider youngest account, but the first two variables can be interpreted and/or weighed differently by different people. And of course there's the FICO algorithm as well. Someone can have an AAoA of 4 years and have their AoOA be 4 years as well. If TT is around he can chime in on the upper limits (best positions) of each of these, but shooting from the hip I think an AAoA of 8-10 years and a AoOA of 10-12 years is about all you need for maximum FICO scoring and maximum consideration of an "old" file. I would think numbers of about half that, though, would be the start of where a file could be considered "aged" or "old" ... say an AAoA of 4-5 years and an AoOA of slightly longer than that.