Monday, March 30, 2009

Despite Credit-Limit Reductions, FICO High Achievers Continue To Fare Well


A recent study conducted by FICO shows that credit-limit reductions are not hurting consumers with high credit scores. To manage risk, lenders have been reining in available credit, which isn't surprising. What is surprising, though, is that -- even though lenders have cut limits for those who are considered low risk -- scores have actually trended upward, according to FICO.

FICO's research, which looked at data from April 2008 to October 2008, focused exclusively on the impact that credit-limit reductions or account closures had on consumers with no "recent risk triggers" on their credit reports. A risk trigger was defined as a late payment, collection, or public record. While FICO confined its study to those three risk triggers, I was interested in some of the additional risk triggers that FICO said lenders look for. Indeed, FICO says that some risk factors that lenders look at include excessive cash advances, overdrawing checking accounts or bouncing checks, and unemployment benefits that consumers collect. Those factors suggest that lenders are going well beyond the credit report to assess risk. In other words, heads up.

Meanwhile, the study's findings also shed some light on why FICO recently decided that it would not tweak its scoring model to account for the number of credit-limit reductions that consumers have recently experienced (see story here). According to FICO, only 16% of the United States population experienced a reduction in total revolving credit from April 2008 to October 2008. Some five percent had a risk trigger; the remaining 11% did not. And remember: the no-risk-trigger group actually enjoyed a score increase during the study period.

Here are some of FICO's findings:

  • Lenders targeted higher scoring population — Our analysis of data from April 2008 and October 2008 shows that when lenders reduced the amount of credit available to people whose credit reports had no recent risk triggers, lenders were targeting borrowers with inactive or low-balance card accounts. On average, this population already tended to be very low-risk. Their median FICO score was 770, and their card accounts typically had: a very low balance, low credit-utilization ratio (see FICO's utilization primer here), very few if any missed payments, and a long credit history. As a result, small reductions in total revolving credit had minimal effect on their FICO scores.

  • For borrowers in the no-risk-triggers segment who received a reduction in total revolving credit, the median FICO score actually increased from 768 in April to 770 in October 2008. Contributing to this positive score change were lender updates to their credit reports which reflected good credit habits such as paying bills on time, paying down revolving debt, and taking on new credit sparingly.

  • The median FICO score for the national population did not change between April 2008 and October 2008. (Based on Equifax data alone, the national median FICO score remained 713.)

  • Credit utilization rate changed little — On average, lenders reduced the total revolving credit available to a borrower in this population (no risk triggers) by $2,200, a relatively small amount. That is approximately 5 percent of the average total revolving credit ($44,000) available to this population during the six-month period.

  • Let me point out one thing. That median Equifax FICO score of 713 is interesting. You'll recall that I recently interviewed Craig Watts, public relations director for FICO. I was told that the median score had fallen to about 720 -- down slightly from FICO's most recent figure of 723. "Though there has been a large focus on at-risk consumers since the onset of the recession, the majority of the people in the United States continue to pay bills as agreed. Consequently, when looking at [the] entire distribution, FICO scores are remaining relatively stable," FICO's Craig Watts told me at the time (story link here).

    If Equifax's median FICO score was 713 in at the end of October, then what are the median FICO scores at Experian and TransUnion? Equifax's recent median score suggests that median scores at TransUnion and Experian must be significantly higher. Let's just say that I am scratching my head over this one. Scores could be higher at Experian and TransUnion, sure, but would they be high enough to bring the median FICO score for the general population -- using all three bureaus -- to 720? (If one of my readers has an explanation, feel free to offer it in the comments section. Thanks.)

    You can view all of the findings of FICO's study here (link).

    24 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    I'd be interested to see a similar report looking at Oct 2008 through March 2009. (I'm sure they don't have that data yet.) Most of the limit cuts and rate hikes I've seen were during this time period and, I'm guessing, affected a good bit more than 16% of the population. But that's just a guess. It seems to me that the period they're looking at was before the beginning of the credit limit massacre.

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    FICO says that it will continue to do these studies. That period -- October 2008 through March 2009 -- would be interesting, indeed.

    clutchcargo said...

    Um, how does a lender know that you are receiving unemployment benefits, without you telling them?

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    Clutch, good question. Do not know. But I was fascinated by the disclosure.

    Mat T said...

    What this misses is that those of us with 680 scores and who are trying to buy a house are getting their limits cut and rates jacked up which IS hurting our scores....We paid down ALL of our cards to get the scores up and then two mores cards cut the limits...by $4000.00 on a 6000.00 card.....

    A weird and unfair spiral downward.....

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    FICO is saying that you -- and those similarly situated -- have not felt enough pain, Mat. At least through October 2008. Would be especially curious to see what the results would look like for the subsequent 6 months.

    caughtshort said...

    Despite WHAT credit limit reductions?? The period of April 2008 to October 2008 was the golden age!

    Hack and slash didn't start until after that period.

    But, during that time home values decreased, so people weren't taking out new mortgages and were instead paying down their current mortgages and lines of credit. I'll attribute that to the statistically insignificant bump.

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    CS, there were plenty of credit-limit reductions during that period -- but they were bunched, I would guess, toward the tail end of the study period.

    http://www.creditmattersblog.com/2008/10/american-express-appears-to-be-stepping.html

    But there can be little doubt that credit-limit reductions have been stepped up since then.

    Anonymous said...

    How is a lender to know that you are taking excessive cash advances without your telling them?

    --Don

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    I think they're talking about cash advances with the lender that takes adverse action on you. In other words, Citibank hammers you for taking too many cash advances with Citibank.

    There is no way for American Express to know that you are taking too many cash advances with Citibank, for example. That's why FICO must be referring to a situation like my Citibank example.

    Anonymous said...

    Also, my EX (before the split) and TU were always significantly higher than EQ. The only difference is EQ won't include my Sunoco card which I have had for decades.

    --Don

    Anonymous said...

    Thanks for another informative article.

    Clicked on the "FICO's utilization primer" link.
    At the very bottom there is the reminder: "Note that when an account is closed, it doesn’t matter to the FICO score who closed it — you or the lender"> I just closed a CC account with a zero balance and my credit report shows closed by owner.

    Why does who closes the account NOT make a difference to FICO ?? I would think it would reflect positive if the owner closed instead of the vendor, therefore minimizing the chance of a credit reduction ?

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    If it's positive when a consumer closes the account does that mean it should be negative when a lender closes the account? How would FICO know if a lender closed the account because of something negative you did? What if the lender just closed the account because it was dormant? Should that be considered a negative for the consumer?

    My guess is this: FICO can't figure out why an account gets closed. And two, FICO hasn't found a link between closed accounts and heightened risk.

    Also, I have had lenders close my account -- without me asking -- and it says closed at consumer's request. Should I be rewarded for that kind of closure -- even when it was really closed at the lender's insistence?

    Peter said...

    The reason why FICO does not take into account which party closed the account is not only that accounts are closed by creditor for non-risk-related reasons, but also that the information in that field is notoriously unreliable. Creditors just aren't very good at accurately populating that information.

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    Peter, agree. See my comment about lender closing account and saying that it was at my request.

    Peter said...

    Sorry, CM. Should have refreshed before posting.

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    Peter, no worries. We're in agreement on this issue. It would suck if this was a risk factor and the lender didn't populate the record correctly.

    Anonymous said...

    How do they find out about bounced checks without subpoenas of bank records. Do credit agencies have access to checking info through one of the banking databases such as chexx? Does every bounced check go to chexx or another source for reporting to credit agencies? I had a large check bounce on me and subsequently, I bounced a few. How does this affect or show up on my credit score? If proven to be not my fault, can this be corrected?

    CreditMattersBlog.com said...

    Anon, bounced checks DO NOT affect credit scores. And I am not sure where these card issuers are getting these data. I figure they must subscribe to a service. But that's a guess.

    Do any of my readers know how lenders are monitoring check bouncing?

    dd50 said...

    I find it interesting that scores haven't went down. It seems they have been chopping scores in that period of time.

    Also wondering how they are checking all this info that isn't on credit reports.

    Green said...

    I'm not sure what to make of this entire thing. I find it pretty hard to believe the AVERAGE score hasn't dropped significantly. I am also shocked to read that 11% of the card reductions were not the result of any trigger. It goes to show they are doing what they want and in many cases as consumers there is nothing we can do about it.

    Peter said...

    Some returned checks are reported on credit files, although they are not included in the FICO score. Lenders can find out about returned checks as well as overdrawn accounts by ordering ChexSystems reports. ChexSystems is like a credit bureau for checking account information.

    Anonymous said...

    I read this thinking that my situation was proof positive that the study was accurate. With a perfect payment history and a FICO score perpetually just shy of the 800 mark, my credit limits had survived the credit crisis unscathed, that is, until today. Unfortunately, two minutes ago, I checked my BoA account online and the credit line had been reduced by $10,600 to $11,000. I assume a lovely letter in the mail is forthcoming along with an alert from myFICO that my credit score has declined.

    Anonymous said...

    In the past month I have had 3 credit cards reduced amex 28500>2700 (200 above balance) and AMex 15000>1000 and BofA 23000>2000.

    I complained to AMex cause thats my point card and charge all the time on that, now its no good to me (can't even charge a disney trip on it) THey asked for financials.

    I too feel that this year the reductions wil show to be enormous. I carry low utilization and 745 FICO. I'm lucky that I have 25 other cards to choose from. Credit unions have not reduced yet and I carry 30K plus limits on those.

    Post a Comment