No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Anonymous wrote:
@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?
1. I don't understand the distinction. Sorry. It seems like one event to me. So let's move off of that topic.
2. The difference was around $2k, and it didn't budge the rounded aggregate utilization number.
3. It was an urban legend that FICO algorithms only cared about the highest utilization account, and ignored less egregious high utilization accounts. Unfortunately the last 7 months or so have given me great familiarity with the > 30% neighborhood on individual accounts, and time and time again it has been made clear to me that the number of high utilization accounts makes a big difference.
@Anonymous wrote:
I agree BBS; however common wisdom right now says it only takes into account the highest individual utilization revolver, but other common wisdom has been proven false, so dps are good!
In my experience that so called "common wisdom" is utterly false.
I am quite certain that the number of high utilization accounts matters, and FICO does not discount those which exceed a threshold but not as badly as the highest.
I am no longer passing along "common wisdom" which flies in the face of experience. Another term for "common wisdom" is "the madness of crowds".
@Anonymous wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their own definitions perspectives and opinions. When I say common wisdom, I simply mean the proposed workings of the algorithm from evidence from the data points that have been furnished by members of this Community and their analyses. Whether that constitutes the madness of crowds, I personally doubt.
I have found that much of the common wisdom has been accurate or close to accurate. There have been notable exceptions, such as the discovery that loans do not cause scorecard reassignment and that 8.9% is not necessary to stay under the 10% threshold, that being less than 9.5% is sufficient.
Yes there have definitely been errors and there are no doubt still errors in some of the Community’s common wisdom, but my position is, it’s the best information available. And we continue to learn and improve it, which is why data points like these are important.
I prefer evidence myself. And I don't consider prevailing opinions to be "information".
But as you say, "Everyone is entitled to their own definitions perspectives and opinions."
That’s one of the things that makes this Community strong is the diversity in opinion.
The fact that we respectfully challenge each other‘s proposals and hypotheses and look for weak spots helps improve our knowledge base.
I’m grateful for the data points that you and all community members provide and I’m grateful for what I learn from all of you.
@SouthJamaica wrote:I am quite certain that the number of high utilization accounts matters, and FICO does not discount those which exceed a threshold but not as badly as the highest.
So if that is your take on it, then it wouldn't be out of the question that going from X number of high utilization (say, 50%+) accounts to X-1 high utilization accounts could result in a score gain. That being said, if you dropped from > 50% utilization to < 50% utilization on 1 account one metric could be the utilization on that individual account where a second could theoretically be now having 1 less account at/above that potential threshold point.
Maybe I'm just talking in circles here and not understanding you... but it sounds like you're saying that the number of accounts could be a factor, but then are saying that it can't / let's not talk about it?
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:I am quite certain that the number of high utilization accounts matters, and FICO does not discount those which exceed a threshold but not as badly as the highest.
So if that is your take on it, then it wouldn't be out of the question that going from X number of high utilization (say, 50%+) accounts to X-1 high utilization accounts could result in a score gain. That being said, if you dropped from > 50% utilization to < 50% utilization on 1 account one metric could be the utilization on that individual account where a second could theoretically be now having 1 less account at/above that potential threshold point.
Maybe I'm just talking in circles here and not understanding you... but it sounds like you're saying that the number of accounts could be a factor, but then are saying that it can't / let's not talk about it?
It has been stated by some members of this forum that in evaluating individual account overutilization, FICO algorithms just looked at your highest utilization account, and discounted the rest. I have found that that is not the case, and that the number of high utilization accounts does matter, and matters a lot.
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:I am quite certain that the number of high utilization accounts matters, and FICO does not discount those which exceed a threshold but not as badly as the highest.
So if that is your take on it, then it wouldn't be out of the question that going from X number of high utilization (say, 50%+) accounts to X-1 high utilization accounts could result in a score gain.
That's exactly what I have described in my original post.
That being said, if you dropped from > 50% utilization to < 50% utilization on 1 account one metric could be the utilization on that individual account where a second could theoretically be now having 1 less account at/above that potential threshold point.
Maybe I'm just talking in circles here and not understanding you... but it sounds like you're saying that the number of accounts could be a factor, but then are saying that it can't / let's not talk about it?
@SouthJamaica wrote:I am quite certain that the number of high utilization accounts matters, and FICO does not discount those which exceed a threshold but not as badly as the highest.
This makes sense to me, at least for EX scoring.
I have a 5% aggregate threshold on my scorecard (5% after rounding). If I'm at or above it, I lose EQ 8 -3pts, TU 8 -1pts.
But for EX only, every single card has to be under 5% for a +3pt gain on EX 8 and 2. If just one card is at/or above 5% - no gain.
It's obviously looking at each account separately on my scorecard. Number of high utilization accounts seems more than plausible to me.