SSL Strategy, 20-35 points on F8 potentially

As pioneered by MF Moderator Emeritus Revelate, if one has no loans on their credit report, one may open a small secured or unsecured loan and quickly pay the loan balance down to <9.5% of the loan amount borrowed. Once this reports, F8 will typically award 20 to 35 points. (All time high reported by @Saeren. This award results from the Amounts Owed category, from bringing the B/L from 100% down through various threshold(s), including the believed 65% threshold and 10% threshold. By quickly passing both thresholds, the profile typically receives a significant award. Be aware that loans can also offer points over time as well, but it may be an either/or. See the Credit Scoring Primer at Amounts Owed for more information. BM

My PenFed SSL just reported at <9.5% and my EX FICO8 went up 33 points!

Awesome! That lands right in the predicted range.

Is this your first loan ever?

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:43 am Awesome! That lands right in the predicted range. Is this your first loan ever?

I have four student loans that were paid off around 2015-2016. The SSL is my only open loan. I mentioned in my introductory post, but will repeat here so the information is consolidated. I actually have two SSLs because PenFed screwed up the first one and put it as a 10 month term instead of 120 month. They weren't able to fix it so I opened a second one. So both SSLs opened in Jan, but only the first one paid off to <9% before the end of Jan. In February, my score didn't change much and my loan util was about 53%. Paid off the second one to <9% in Feb, and it just updated on my reports today.

The SSL is such a boss hack lol. Congrats!

@beets18 congratulations that’s only two points away from the maximum I’ve had reported! @Saeren which Scorecard were you on when you got the 35 points?

I had a BK card when I got my SSL.

Which card(s) are known to result in the most/least points from a SSL?

I’m not sure but it appears Utilization is supposed to be worth more than a dirty card so I would think other factors in that category might be?

It would be nice to compile some small data sets of gains seen from the addition of a SSL on each scorecard. I think 3-5 solid data points would be more than sufficient to draw a beginning point average to be referenced by scorecard.

Then, rather than say "20-35 points" we could fine tune that to "On your card, expect 23-28 points" or "On that scorecard we've seen 30-35 points."

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:05 pm It would be nice to compile some small data sets of gains seen from the addition of a SSL on each scorecard. I think 3-5 solid data points would be more than sufficient to draw a beginning point average to be referenced by scorecard. Then, rather than say "20-35 points" we could fine tune that to "On your card, expect 23-28 points" or "On that scorecard we've seen 30-35 points."

Hopefully I should have another DP in a few days when I get my 3 bureau pull since the +33 points was on EX (clean per birdman, because only 30 day lates) and EQ and TU are dirty (60+ day lates).

beets18 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:37 pm Hopefully I should have another DP in a few days when I get my 3 bureau pull since the +33 points was on EX (clean per birdman, because only 30 day lates) and EQ and TU are dirty (60+ day lates).

That'll be a good comparison as well, 2 dirty verses 1 clean with the other factors being a constant.

beets18 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:37 pm

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:05 pm It would be nice to compile some small data sets of gains seen from the addition of a SSL on each scorecard. I think 3-5 solid data points would be more than sufficient to draw a beginning point average to be referenced by scorecard. Then, rather than say "20-35 points" we could fine tune that to "On your card, expect 23-28 points" or "On that scorecard we've seen 30-35 points."

Hopefully I should have another DP in a few days when I get my 3 bureau pull since the +33 points was on EX (clean per birdman, because only 30 day lates) and EQ and TU are dirty (60+ day lates).

@BrutalBodyShots I agree. That’s why I ask the scorecard, and it’s important to make a note of it because @beets18 has different scorecards depending on bureau. @beets18 don’t rely on my word, give us your negative reason codes, you have a revolver under 12 months old right? If you see the new account negative reason code you are on a clean Scorecard, it does not exist on dirty cards.

Birdman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:05 am @beets18 don’t rely on my word, give us your negative reason codes, you have a revolver under 12 months old right? If you see the new account negative reason code you were on a clean Scorecard, what does not exist on dirty cards.

I do have a revolver under 12 months. Here's the negative reason codes from my Experian 3-bureau report as of March 1st (before the SSL updated) Bad Payment History (EX and TU only) You have one or more accounts showing missed payments or derogatory indicators. Number of your accounts with a missed payment or derogatory indicator 1 account Few Accounts Paid On Time (All 3) You have an insufficient number of accounts that are currently paid as agreed. Number of your accounts currently being paid as agreed 1 account Loan Balances (All 3) The remaining balance on your mortgage or non-mortgage installment loans is relatively high. Percentage of principal you have paid down on your open non-mortgage installment loans So I don't see any code related to new accounts, which would imply dirty on all three, correct? I do however see "Many new accounts" and "Seeking credit" on EX2.

I was on a CLEAN/THIN-ish/MATURE/NEW-REVOLVER scorecard. Fully optimized revolving accounts aggregate and individual utilization and AZEO. One closed installment loan and one closed revolving account still reporting. When my fully optimized utilization NFCU SSL showed up I got the below for FICO 8s: EX 749 -> 778 (+29) EQ 753 -> 786 (+33) TU 773 -> 804 (+31) Negative reason codes before and after:

Great data above, @AllZero . Are you able to quantify what you mean by "THIN-ish"?