Would I be at 850 if it wasn't for the CFA?

[AzCreditGuy]

Kidding, but how is the CFA hurting me when I have other factors affecting my score at 822? This is from B of A after I get a $7k increase on my CC

[Anonymous]

Tough to say.  If you access your score / reason statements from a CMS do you see the same 4 listed in your screenshot above and if so, are they in the same order?  If CFA is at the end of the list, generally speaking I would say that it isn't impacting your score 25+ points on a > 800 score profile.

As an aside, is there any information on that account that is dispute-worthy?  It could be a name, address, date, basically anything.  If you were to dispute an incorrectly reported item on the account and the Fico algorithm were to temporarily "ignore" that account for scoring purposes, it would probably give you a brief window to see a score increase without the CFA being factored in while the dispute was in process. 

I will clarify that above I am not suggesting you dispute an accurately reported account... simply that if there is something on the account not accurately reported it could be disputed.

[AzCreditGuy]

This is from Experian and doesnt even show the same stuff as B of A, Discover show when I apply for a CLI. They are soft pulls but I feel I get better code reasons than Experian. I dont care about getting a 850, but I am wondering how many points I am losing from that CFA Neg? And its all because they dont reconize SOFI as a lender. 

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately you need a source for negative reason statements.  I'm guessing Experian drops them for scores over a certain amount, perhaps 800 just shooting from the hip although I have no idea. 

I'm trying to remember where I was able to get negative reason statements from when my scores were above 800, but under 850.  I know the sources were few and far between, but there was definitely one that you would get a list even with a score of 849.  I'm sure others can help me out with this. 

Do the statements you get from Discover when receiving a CLI-related letter match the ones you referenced in the image from the original post?  If so, are they in the same order?

[Slabenstein]

Experian's cutoff for reason statments on the classic FICO versions is 800.  Amex gives me two negative reason statements for my EX8, if OP has one of their cards, but if the CFA code is in the fourth slot it still wouldn't be visible.  If your EX AU8 & esp. BC8 are below 850 (I think) you can also look at the reason statements that generate there for some idea of what might go with your classic EX8.

W/ regards to the OP's main question, I expect that the impact of the presence of a CFA on your score is very small.  Reason codes go in order of impact and the CFA one often doesn't show up for people who definitely have them b/c other more costly stuff is bumping it down.  You were only 28 points from perfect on the date of that pull, and the CFA's portion of that is less than that of either revolving ages, account ages, or accounts w/ a balance being not completely perfect.  The CFA by itself almost certainly isn't costing you the full 28.

[AzCreditGuy]

---

@Slabenstein wrote:

Experian's cutoff for reason statments on the classic FICO versions is 800.  Amex gives me two negative reason statements for my EX8, if OP has one of their cards, but if the CFA code is in the fourth slot it still wouldn't be visible.  If your EX AU8 & esp. BC8 are below 850 (I think) you can also look at the reason statements that generate there for some idea of what might go with your classic EX8.

W/ regards to the OP's main question, I expect that the impact of the presence of a CFA on your score is very small.  Reason codes go in order of impact and the CFA one often doesn't show up for people who definitely have them b/c other more costly stuff is bumping it down.  You were only 28 points from perfect on the date of that pull, and the CFA's portion of that is less than that of either revolving ages, account ages, or accounts w/ a balance being not completely perfect.  The CFA by itself almost certainly isn't costing you the full 28.

I mean I know its not costing me 28 pts, just wondering how many pts it is costing me. The CFA is such a BS code and should be updated to todays standards of lending not the 1950s

---

[AzCreditGuy]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately you need a source for negative reason statements.  I'm guessing Experian drops them for scores over a certain amount, perhaps 800 just shooting from the hip although I have no idea. 

I'm trying to remember where I was able to get negative reason statements from when my scores were above 800, but under 850.  I know the sources were few and far between, but there was definitely one that you would get a list even with a score of 849.  I'm sure others can help me out with this. 

Do the statements you get from Discover when receiving a CLI-related letter match the ones you referenced in the image from the original post?  If so, are they in the same order?

---

Not the statements but the reason  letter the denial of a CLI show what B of A is showing above for CFA. I would have not known this CFA was showing up on my report if it wasnt for B of A & Discover.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the CFA impact on your score is likely small on your file.  If unable to quantify the CFA, you could always try to quantify the 4th negative reason statement on your list and at least you know the CFA would be "worth" less than that.

[Slabenstein]

---

@AzCreditGuy wrote:

---

@Slabenstein wrote:

Experian's cutoff for reason statments on the classic FICO versions is 800.  Amex gives me two negative reason statements for my EX8, if OP has one of their cards, but if the CFA code is in the fourth slot it still wouldn't be visible.  If your EX AU8 & esp. BC8 are below 850 (I think) you can also look at the reason statements that generate there for some idea of what might go with your classic EX8.

W/ regards to the OP's main question, I expect that the impact of the presence of a CFA on your score is very small.  Reason codes go in order of impact and the CFA one often doesn't show up for people who definitely have them b/c other more costly stuff is bumping it down.  You were only 28 points from perfect on the date of that pull, and the CFA's portion of that is less than that of either revolving ages, account ages, or accounts w/ a balance being not completely perfect.  The CFA by itself almost certainly isn't costing you the full 28.

---

I mean I know its not costing me 28 pts, just wondering how many pts it is costing me. The CFA is such a BS code and should be updated to todays standards of lending not the 1950s

---

If you don't have a buffer it's costing you 7 points or less, but I don't know that there's a way to tell whether you do or don't.

[Anonymous]

I know I do not have a profile nearly robust as yours, but CFAs were a giant ding on my scores as well as my SO. I have a very, very dirty profile with CAs, hundreds of lates (thanks SLs), CO, defaulted SLs, etc and CFA ranked number 3 on my negative reason codes always until they aged off. I found this hard to believe with all the other dirt on my reports that this ranked so high. These accounts, funny enough, were not derogatory at all or at any point - they were completely positive accounts and I gained +20 in the EQ5 scores. I had 4 age off and the CFA code completely vanished.

My SO also had the exact same CFAs (SLs) and were also entirely positive TLs and they aged off and he has an equally dirty score card as mine. He saw upwards of +40 pts gained in the EQ5s. He had 2 age off.

Our F8 remained the exact same.

Again, I am not sure if they impact certain score cards more severely than others, but this was my experience with CFAs. I could only evaluate EQ because this was the only bureau that had all the CFAs age off and all at once. We always hear it is likely a small impact because we don't have any hard data on it. It definitely could depend on which bureau and scorecard, too.