15% Aggregate Threshold [Under 5yr credit file age]

At $6,705 of $46,000 total credit limit, 14.576% actual, 15% for FICO: EX8 751 At $6,660 of $46,000 total credit limit, 14.478% actual, 14% for FICO: EX8 756 +5 points (Note that this is yet another data point against the 'Under x.99%' hypothesis. FICO is using standard rounding for utilization, not a ceiling.) 3 of 4 reporting a balance, and no change in individual utilization percent on any card. [Edit: Discover card change from 8% to 7%.] I'm always very mindful of the dollar amount when looking at score gains from utilization percent changes. This gain is clearly all about the percentage! This may or may not be the case for other scorecards with a longer credit history, but I think it's safe to say that under 5 years total credit file age, this threshold is going to be there. AAoA: 3yr 2mo AoOA: 4yr 5mo AoORA: 3yr 5mo AoYA: 2yr 3mo No Inquiries anywhere, including under 2 years.

This sounds reasonable. What is your AAoA?

Credible wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:22 pm This sounds reasonable. What is your AAoA?

I need to add a button or table to post those. lol I'll update the original post too: AAoA: 3yr 2mo AoOA: 4yr 5mo AoORA: 3yr 5mo AoYA: 2yr 3mo No Inquiries anywhere, including under 2 years.

Is a 15% threshold a new theory?

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:00 pm Is a 15% threshold a new theory?

I think it's going to turn out to be a fact now, at least with the scorecard I'm on now with the aging metrics listed above. I mean, unless there's a $6,700 'amount owed' threshold! I intentionally set my profile up to record that change when my Discover card reported a lower balance from the month before, bringing my aggregate utilization from 15% to 14%. The Discover card change was 8% to 7%. I don't think I'll be able to cross back over 15% next month, since I'm all out of major things to spend on. I'm carrying around $4000 on my Amex BCE at 0% until October, with around $1800-$2000 regular monthly spend. I've been gathering data on EX2 score changes at various thousand-dollar thresholds, but I haven't put all those reports together yet.

This goes along with the recently reported 40% threshold, maybe they’re every 5%? Notice the Primer says the well known thresholds, or something to that language not all thresholds. Can’t wait till CRADIS!!

If there are thresholds at every 5% increment, do you think 5% is the first one? There should be twice as much data out there on a 5% threshold as there is on 10% (for which we have a ton) so I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed before. I know people have pointed to 5% mattering on "their" profile... like SJ for example at the other place, but many times those are ultra high aggregate limit files meaning large raw dollar shifts in addition to percentage changes.

I agree that we'll have a clearer picture once CRADIS gains some traction.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:23 am If there are thresholds at every 5% increment, do you think 5% is the first one? There should be twice as much data out there on a 5% threshold as there is on 10% (for which we have a ton) so I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed before.

I was the first one to document that 5% threshold in great detail. I crossed over and under it multiple times on purpose, always losing/gaining the same small amount of points. I did this around 7 times so far. It was only around +/-5 points maximum, with EX8 always at +/-3. So far, I've seen score changes at 5, 10, and just this month, 15% aggregate utilization thresholds. It may very well be every 5 for those with relatively low aging values. Maybe number of accounts influences it as well - I really don't know, just speculating there.

By low aging values do you mean on a young scorecard, or do you think it's determined some other way?

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 11:21 am By low aging values do you mean on a young scorecard, or do you think it's determined some other way?

AoOA and/or AAoA. Maybe AoORA/AAoRA has some influence as well?

I can say for both me and SO - new/young to revolvers on otherwise aged, but dirty profiles - the standard thresholds apply and there are no changes at the 5% increments otherwise.

I wouldnt be surprised if there is more scrutiny on overall young profiles to grade them on util on more thresholds than those of older/mature profiles.

LaHossBoss wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:53 pm I wouldnt be surprised if there is more scrutiny on overall young profiles to grade them on util on more thresholds than those of older/mature profiles.

That could be the case. Hopefully in time we'll be able to determine which scorecard(s) and/or which aging factors may impact utilization thresholds at the 5% mid-point increments.

LaHossBoss wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:53 pm I can say for both me and SO - new/young to revolvers on otherwise aged, but dirty profiles - the standard thresholds apply and there are no changes at the 5% increments otherwise. I wouldnt be surprised if there is more scrutiny on overall young profiles to grade them on util on more thresholds than those of older/mature profiles.

Considering how many times I was told over at MF "I never saw that score change", I'm increasingly convinced that everything I saw during my first 2 years of revolving credit history is related to aging somehow. I hope the breakpoint is on Average Age. Maybe these 5,10,15 changes I'm seeing go away at AAoA 4yr0mo or 5yr0mo.

Yeah I was going to say the 5% threshold is probably the best documented threshold we have. I understand your concerns of a young profile maybe having something to do with it, and if so, I think it would be age of oldest revolving account, because this is a Revolving Utilization Metric. it’s obviously not scorecard assignment because you’re in a mature Scorecard.

The problem I have is Utilization and age are in different categories. If something were to influence it, I would more easily believe something in its own category would influence it. Now, I may be totally wrong, but maybe as it considers AWB, it considers them in different sets of intervals, depending on total number of accounts.

If something like this were coded then someone with fewer accounts could see this whereas someone with more accounts would not. So it may be related the number of accounts and depth rather than age, just my humble opinion. And while number of accounts is a mix category factor, what I’m proposing is if AWB had, as I said, a couple different sets of intervals in each scorecard depending on your total number of accounts built-in, but that’s a lot of speculation.

I'm surprised to hear that 5% is the most documented threshold. Whenever I recall seeing threshold lists over the years it is always 9%-10% being referenced as the first threshold point. Interesting.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 10:04 pm I'm surprised to hear that 5% is the most documented threshold. Whenever I recall seeing threshold lists over the years it is always 9%-10% being referenced as the first threshold point. Interesting.

Show me an example with the detail of @Cassie‘s and I will concede. I didn’t say most I said Best.