cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

# of accounts with > 50% balance

Highlighted
Super Contributor

# of accounts with > 50% balance

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.


Total revolving limits 653000 (575000 reporting)

32 REPLIES 32
Highlighted
Regular Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance

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)!



AoOA- 6.8 - AAoA - 4.6 - Clean Profile - 25% UTI - 10k/41k Limits

Message 2 of 33
Highlighted
Regular Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance

And the citi just reported 68-48% +8 pts!



AoOA- 6.8 - AAoA - 4.6 - Clean Profile - 25% UTI - 10k/41k Limits

Message 3 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance

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?

Message 4 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance


@mickvain wrote:

And the citi just reported 68-48% +8 pts!


Nice Smiley Happy


Total revolving limits 653000 (575000 reporting)

Message 5 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance


@BrutalBodyShots 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%


Total revolving limits 653000 (575000 reporting)

Message 6 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance

Right, but also your number of accounts above 50% utilization decreased by 1, no?

Message 7 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance


@BrutalBodyShots 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.

 

 


Total revolving limits 653000 (575000 reporting)

Message 8 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance


@SouthJamaica wrote:

@BrutalBodyShots 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 @BrutalBodyShots 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?

-Our Community’s updated scoring wisdom: Link to Scoring Primer.
-For Negative Reason Codes see: CassieCard’s Score Factors thread.
-ccquest’s workbook to calculate metrics for you: Link to Workbook.

Oct 2020 New Account Scorecard.Nov 2020, No New Account Scorecard (reassignment conflated with aging. EX9 not updated yet. Oldest/avg varies. Estimates above.)
Real world mortgage maxes are: EQ5-818, TU4-839, EX2-844.


RIP:
(Everything said is JMHO and is not endorsed by FICO or MF. I have no affiliation with either, just a grateful member.)
Message 9 of 33
Highlighted
Super Contributor

Re: # of accounts with > 50% balance

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.

Message 10 of 33
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.