FICO Score Weirdness

When you are asking someone for a loan, they get to make the rules (within the law).

If you think FICO scores are a sham and just a way to deny credit to good people, go to one of the online lending exchanges and lend some money. You can choose to ignore the FICO scores of the recipients.
 
No need to be humble, when you're absolutely right.
It's a scam & nothing more.

Like the time in 2007 ? when I got a letter from my Insurance agent, stating that because my FICO score wasn't perfect, they couldn't give me the best rate.

I went right down to the office & almost tore his head off.
I told him straight up, listen up *******, I've had a home, at least one car, & a motorcycle insured for over 30 years without a claim, never paid late, & you're going to use some BS like this!

I'm not really a confrontational type, but this pissed me off so bad, I just totally went off on the guy.
Because many others responded the same way, they dropped that asinine practice shortly thereafter.

Wow - you do realize that the insurance agent is merely punching in your data into the insurer's database, and out pops the cost of insurance that the company tells them they must charge, right? Your agent isn't sitting at a computer with a calculator in hand, punching in numbers to compute what they will decide to charge you. I'm sure people like you make his day. At least he has a story to tell about the guy that lost it because a computer 2,000 miles away told him something he didn't like, then took it out on the agent, who has absolutely no control over it whatsoever.

And do you realize that models have shown (with hard data) that people with higher credit scores, on average, have lower claims than people who don't? Imagine that - if someone isn't able to manage their credit as well as people who do, it kind of does make sense that they probably also can't manage their lives as well, and would probably also be somewhat careless when driving, or living and maintaining a home.

FICO and other credit scores are just a way for the credit bureaus to generate more income from the trove of data they've accumulated, so I expect weirdness. I have a report that says my credit history of 30 yrs is too short and holding my score down. IMHO it's a scam.

I'm honestly shocked at how many negative replies there are about the FICO score. Just what do people suggest they use?!?!?! Should it be an honor system like apartment rental applications, where the credit card and mortgage companies are supposed to ask applicants for a self-reported credit history? (like many people would even track things like average monthly balances, or even know what their max credit is on a card, etc.) Do you honestly think something like self-reporting (other than a FICO-type score) would ever work, for a system that deals with thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars with each individual? How would you determine who gets to pay lower interest rates? Or do you think everyone should simply be charged the same rate - either sky high to account for defaults, or everyone sings kumbayah and is only charged 1% over inflation because everyone should be nice and live in Utopia, and when people default - people just sing a little louder to drown out the lenders that are left holding the bag?

Is FICO perfect? Of course not. Does it predict the future? No, it shows - with a single numerical result - the ODDS/LIKELIHOOD of the applicant in managing their loan, based on their past history. Finance companies understand that, yes, some of those with FICO scores of 800+ WILL default....but the % of 800+ that default will be a rounding error compared to those with a FICO score of under 500 who default.

You could have someone personally looking at every single application, and the credit history of every single person who ever applies for a credit card/mortgage/etc.....if people don't mind paying 1%-3% more in interest rate to pay for a human to scan every applicant's credit history. And the funny thing is that the human would wind up doing (in one form or another) the very same thing that the FICO score computes - what the applicant's use of credit has been like based on their past accounts and spending patterns.

And in fact, I'm sure that there would be people suing for discrimination for one form or another if a human actually did the reviewing on a case-by-case basis, rather than a computer program that simply uses pure data with no possible human influence or bias.
 
places the give you your score have to list the "worst" reasons why your score is what it is. For folks with great scores, the reasons are always petty. And that's the way it should be.

Thanks. That's the first explanation I've ever seen that actually makes sense.
 
Wow - you do realize that the insurance agent is merely punching in your data into the insurer's database, and out pops the cost of insurance that the company tells them they must charge, right?

<SNIP>

I don't disagree with your overall treatise on the subject of FICO scores (but do see my tag line, heh, heh.) However, regarding the insurance agent of a car insurance co.: the agent DOES have the ability to "appeal" the rate (at least s/he used to). My family's car/home ins. agent was able to get my dad's insurance premium down after a fender bender had raised it. No histrionics on my dad's part. He simply talked to the agent and the agent appealed to the company. Problem solved. Whether that can still happen, I do not know. However, if not, why do we need an agent? Just go with one of the on-line places and automatically get a lower cost - lower service company. Naturally, YMMV.
 
I had something weird happen to my FICO score in the last few months. After being very stable in the mid 820s since last summer, it suddenly dropped 24 points in April. Then this month it rose 13 points, still not back into the 820s but close.


I wasn't late on any payment, didn't apply for new credit, nothing. The only thing which happened was that my CC bill, paid in full and on time as usual, was a little over $1,000 instead of its usual ~$300. Could that, by itself, ding my FICO score for a month? The CC's limit is $6,000, so it isn't like I am anywhere near its limit.
 
Could that, by itself, ding my FICO score for a month?

Yes. It's not a continuous process. IIRC, they take a monthly snapshot of your financial picture, so it only relates to one instant in time. If that instant differs from the previous month's snapshot, a change is likely.
 
The CC's limit is $6,000, so it isn't like I am anywhere near its limit.

If that is your ONLY credit limit, then that's a significant change (300/6000) is 5% of your credit limit but (1000/6000) is almost 17%. I would agree that it sounds trivial. Still, it's a significant change NUMERICALLY. Now, whether that's "it" (the reason), I have no idea.

If you have 2 or 3 more cards that add to say $20,000 limit, the change would seem even more trivial and I doubt that's the reason for the FICO score change - But I don't know. We were told that our typical $3K to $5K per month on a total of about $25K limit(s) was holding our score down some (816:LOL:) so YMMV.
 
I've always wondered about the utilization metric. Let's say I have three cards with equal limits and one is at or near the limit while the other two have zero balances. My overall utilization is ~33 pct but one card is near 100 pct. Do I get dinged for having that one high balance? I've posed this question to many people in the business but I don't get consistent answers. It may be due to proprietary nature of the formula. I suspect I do get dinged which means moving my balances to a low rate card is bad for my score. Just one example of how FICO can impact behavior. I think using payment history is legit but beyond that it's questionable how the data is used. If anyone has a link I'd like to see it but since the formula is secret how could one evaluate it? Besides that the little bit we know causes behavior changes so is the formula still valid? If BOA grants me a limit increase am I instantly less likely to default?
 
I've always wondered about the utilization metric. Let's say I have three cards with equal limits and one is at or near the limit while the other two have zero balances. My overall utilization is ~33 pct but one card is near 100 pct. Do I get dinged for having that one high balance? I've posed this question to many people in the business but I don't get consistent answers. It may be due to proprietary nature of the formula. I suspect I do get dinged which means moving my balances to a low rate card is bad for my score. Just one example of how FICO can impact behavior. I think using payment history is legit but beyond that it's questionable how the data is used. If anyone has a link I'd like to see it but since the formula is secret how could one evaluate it? Besides that the little bit we know causes behavior changes so is the formula still valid? If BOA grants me a limit increase am I instantly less likely to default?

Can't answer your questions, but I'm guessing they would wait a little while (1 to 6 months?) when you up your credit limit to see that you don't abuse it.

Based on what we were told (by the credit score provider - forget which one) I would ASSUME the biggest factor would be the 33% of total and not the 100% of one. We've always used ONE card for 95% of purchases - because it's best for us. I'm using logic here, so maybe I'm wrong. MOST CC companies know that folks with multiple CCs use the ones they have to their best advantage (best points or miles, best cash-back, lowest rate, etc.). I doubt they worry too much about the effect on the one card - but, again, that's the logic and I don't know that they use anything other than their OWN logic. YMMV
 
I've always wondered about the utilization metric. Let's say I have three cards with equal limits and one is at or near the limit while the other two have zero balances. My overall utilization is ~33 pct but one card is near 100 pct. Do I get dinged for having that one high balance?

Assuming the high balance gets reported to the credit bureaus, yes, you do get dinged.

I've posed this question to many people in the business but I don't get consistent answers. It may be due to proprietary nature of the formula. I suspect I do get dinged which means moving my balances to a low rate card is bad for my score. Just one example of how FICO can impact behavior. I think using payment history is legit but beyond that it's questionable how the data is used. If anyone has a link I'd like to see it but since the formula is secret how could one evaluate it? Besides that the little bit we know causes behavior changes so is the formula still valid? If BOA grants me a limit increase am I instantly less likely to default?

I don't have a link, but my responses here are from my experiences when I borrowed $500,000 on credit cards at 0% to put into savings accounts at 5%. That was years ago though.

If BOA increases your limit (assuming that's the card that's near 100% utilization), then yes, your utilization score will improve and your credit score should also improve. You're probably not any less likely to default, but it does look that way to FICO.
 
My FICO score bounced back to where it had been before its unexpected decline back in April. Yay.
 
Reading all the bitching about credit scores reminds me of one time I questioned a reporting agency about my score. The supervisor told me to remember that the report/score is a "snapshot" in time. If that snapshot takes place just after all your debts are received but prior to your payment, the numbers might get skewed. In my estimation, that snapshot never seems to get taken just after you pay all your bills and before any new charges get posted. I think it's a system you can't beat.
I posted earlier, I sometimes ask for credit limit increases to improve my score.
It helps. That's about all I do except to keep those payments current. On line bill pay is a big help, especially auto pay and recurring payments. Relax.
 
Last edited:
Reading all the bitching about credit scores reminds me of one time I questioned a reporting agency about my score. The supervisor told me to remember that the report/score is a "snapshot" in time. If that snapshot takes place just after all your debts are received but prior to your payment, the numbers might get skewed. In my estimation, that snapshot never seems to get taken just after you pay all your bills and before any new charges get posted. I think it's a system you can't beat.
....

You can pay your bill before they are due, like all your CC , simply pay the balance every 2 weeks and whenever you get your bill, it will be 1/2 or even zero of what you spent.

With Online payments, it's easy to log on and pay at anytime, so you can affect the snapshot.
 
You can pay your bill before they are due, like all your CC , simply pay the balance every 2 weeks and whenever you get your bill, it will be 1/2 or even zero of what you spent.

With Online payments, it's easy to log on and pay at anytime, so you can affect the snapshot.

Yeah, I've often thought of the cost of the "float" that many of us use with our credit cards is a small hit on our credit score. I've never worried about it since anything over 800 is gold. Our score has bounced around but never dipped below 800 since they've become readily available. Realistically, for retirees living only from assets, the biggest single issue in getting a loan is showing income. Several of us have discussed this at length in the past. If it's just the FICO "game" (like collecting airline miles) paying early will probably buy you a better score. Not sure what for if you are already in the 800s, but YMMV.
 
Back
Top Bottom