No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
While I have been struggling with unusually high utilization, I was shocked to see a 7-point gain in both EX FICO 2 and EX FICO 8.
After scouring my reports, the only difference I could detect was that one of my four > 50% balances went from 52% to 48%.
This for me (a) confirms the significance of the 50% threshold in individual account utilization, (b) confirms that the number of accounts above a threshold is important, and (c) demonstrates that even a small change in one account in your profile can make a significant point difference if it drags the balance past a threshold.
A frequent, and frustrating, question we often get in this forum is "how can I quickly pick up X # of points in my mortgage scores". Usually the answer is that there isn't a real way to do it quickly. But today's experience, since the mortgage score moved just as quickly as the FICO 8 score, suggests otherwise: by dragging even one > 50% account below 50% (and probably by dragging a > 30% account below 30%) one may indeed pick up some points.
I should today or tomorrow have my citi simplicity move from 68% to 48%. In the last 2 weeks I have seen 5pt to 7pt jumps for crossing thresholds as well on individual accounts on EX8. (85%-48% and 68%-28). With one of those reporting had a 20 pt jump over the month in my EX2 as well (with other factors I'm sure)!
And the citi just reported 68-48% +8 pts!
SJ, it sounds like you had 2 variables change at once. That being said, how are you able to quantify how much each variable impacted the 7 point shift? Have you tested the individual variables independent of the other in the past? I guess my point is how can you tell if each is "worth" say 3 and 4 points as opposed to one being 7 and the other 0?
@Anonymous wrote:And the citi just reported 68-48% +8 pts!
Nice
@Anonymous wrote:SJ, it sounds like you had 2 variables change at once. That being said, how are you able to quantify how much each variable impacted the 7 point shift? Have you tested the individual variables independent of the other in the past? I guess my point is how can you tell if each is "worth" say 3 and 4 points as opposed to one being 7 and the other 0?
No, only 1 variable that I could discern. A single 52% account changing to 48%
Right, but also your number of accounts above 50% utilization decreased by 1, no?
@Anonymous wrote:Right, but also your number of accounts above 50% utilization decreased by 1, no?
To my simple mind, that's the variable. Moving one of four accounts from the 50% + category to the below 50% category.
The dollar number was small enough that it didn't even budge the aggregate utilization number.
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Right, but also your number of accounts above 50% utilization decreased by 1, no?
To my simple mind, that's the variable. Moving one of four accounts from the 50% + category to the below 50% category.
The dollar number was small enough that it didn't even budge the aggregate utilization number.
@SouthJamaica I think what @Anonymous was saying is: are you proposing the 7 points came from individual utilization crossing the 50% threshold, or from a separate metric that measures the number of revolvers with higher than 50% utilization, or a combination of both? And if so, how are you determining how the points are allocated between the two metrics?
But I do find it interesting the your lowered individual utilization gave points when you still have revolvers with higher utilization. Was the change in revolving balances at least $5000? $10,000, if I may ask?
Yes BM, that's what I was getting at. If someone takes a revolver below X utilization percentage, in doing so they also by default now have 1 less account at X utilization percentage or above. I personally do not know if the algorithm looks at number of accounts above a certain utilization percentage, but if it does it means to me that two potential score-changing variables could have been at play for SJ.