u/soonersoldier33

Has Synchrony Bank gone crazy...or should I say *crazier...*than usual? In the past few days, I've received emails for two pretty nice temporary 'bonuses' to the rewards structures of two of my credit cards that are serviced by Synchrony Bank:

Care Credit Rewards Mastercard

This card normally gets 4x points on spend that falls in their 'health and wellness' category along with pet stores, 3x points on grocery and restaurant spend, and 2x points on all other spend, which is actually a pretty solid rewards structure.

Earlier this week, I received an email stating that from now through Dec 31, the card now earns 5x points on any/all purchases capped at $3K in spend. Now, the $3K cap puts a little damper on it, but 5x points on $3K in uncategorized spend is an easy $150 cashback, so I'm not complaining!

OnePay Cash Rewards Mastercard (Wal-Mart)

This card normally gets 3% (5% if you have Wal-Mart+) unlimited cashback at Wal-Mart...in-store, online, and Wal-Mart branded (not including Murphy's) gas stations, and then 1.5% unlimited cashback on all other purchases.

Today, I received an email stating that from today through Sep 17, the card will still earn 5% at Wal-Mart if you have Wal-Mart+, but it will also earn 3% unlimited cashback on all other purchases. Not bad to get to sock drawer the 2% uncat cards for a month, and get 3% instead with no cap.

As anyone who 'chases' or 'churns' credit card rewards is aware, it's been a pretty 'boring' pursuit lately, and several popular rewards cards have recently gotten nerfed (ie. Citi Custom Cash), so getting these pretty nice temporary 'bonuses' to the rewards structures of a couple credit cards was really refreshing. From Synchrony Bank, of all places. Hopefully, they don't close all my accounts for taking 'too much' advantage of them! (If you know, then you know.) Anyone else getting these bonus offers, or anyone seeing other/different bonus offers on other rewards cards serviced by Synchrony?

I've really enjoyed reading all the Data Point threads that some of our contributors/subscribers have been posting, and I've taken quite a few notes onto my messy (yet somehow still 'organized') spreadsheets, but I also realized that it's been a while since I've actually contributed any data points to the cause. Ha! My credit profile has been very active recently, to say the least, as I've opened a few new accounts, and 'moved' a little debt around, so I've had too much conflation going on to capture much of anything useful...until the past couple of weeks.

All of these data points fall under the Amount of Debt (Amounts Owed) category, which means they have no memory in the most commonly used FICO models. I've attributed certain point values to certain scoring metrics based on that, and all scores referenced are Classic FICO 8 scores.

When it comes to revolving utilization scoring, we know that the FICO algorithms track it both as an aggregate and by each individual account. A common thought is that individual revolving utilization only tracks and 'scores' the highest reported utilization on any single account, and then the individual utilization of any accounts below the highest doesn't matter unless they cause your aggregate utilization to cross aggregate scoring thresholds. We've long known that this isn't accurate, and that score penalties for individual utilization can 'stack', so to speak, and here are some of my most recent data points to prove it. I hope to test the individual revolving utilization scoring metric in more depth in the future, but for now, I'm very confident in saying the metric definitely 'stacks', and you can be assessed multiple penalties for having multiple individual accounts that report utilization above scoring thresholds. The trick is identifying individual utilization scoring thresholds specific to your credit profile/FICO scorecard, bc they certainly don't appear to be 'universal' across the board.

Note: I'm not carrying one red cent of interest bearing revolving debt, so please check any judgments on the dollar amounts referenced at the door. The card that's referenced reporting 88% utilized is a BofA card that has 0% APR for nearly the next 2 years.

---

Ok, let's get to it. Here's the pertinent info on my current profile along with the starting point for these DPs:

• FICO 8 Scorecard: Clean/Thick/Mature/New Revolver
• 18 Open Accounts: 16 Revolvers and 2 Installment Loans
• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 19% ($13,660/$73,800)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: Accounts reporting 88%, 51%, 33%, 30%, and 5 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 11/18 (61%)

---

Event #1: NFCU cashRewards+ reports balance change from $101/$10K (1%) --> $2K/$10K (20%)

• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 21% ($15,559/$73,800)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: Accounts reporting 88%, 51%, 33%, 30%, and 5 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 11/18 (61%)

Results: EQ8 -6; TU8 -7; EX8 -4.

Discussion: Minor score loss on all 3 FICO 8 models despite no change to known aggregate/individual thresholds or AWB%. My hypothesis is that this score loss is attributable to total revolving raw dollar balances. The nearly $2K increase makes it impossible to isolate the threshold exactly, but going >$15K sure seems plausible to me.

---

(Non) Events #2 and #3: Cap One Savor and Cap One Kohl's report minor balance changes

Savor: $660/$3750 (18%) --> $474/$3750 (12%)

Kohl's: $446/$1500 (30%) --> $245/$1500 (16%)

• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 21% ($15,172/$73,800)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: Accounts reporting 88%, 51%, 33%, 30%, and 5 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 11/18 (61%)

Results: No score change to any FICO 8 model

Discussion: The only thing of note is that one revolver crossed <30% with no score effect, but keep on 'keeping it low', folks. Ha!

---

Event #4: Cap One Discover reports off-cycle $0/$8500 --> $152/$8500 (2%)

• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 21% ($15,324/$73,800)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: Accounts reporting 88%, 51%, 33%, and 6 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 12/18 (67%)

Results: EQ8 -3; TU8 & EX8 unchanged

Discussion: Dammit, Cap One! This is what makes FICO testing so hard...unexpected report changes. They reported off-cycle when they converted my Discover it into the Cap One ecosystem. I had 2 tanks of gas charged on my Discover for a whopping $152 balance, so AWB% is the only metric that changed notably. EQ8 is the only model that moved. AWB% threshold somewhere around 65% on EQ8?

---

(Non) Event #5: Synchrony Care Credit reports off-cycle Proactive Credit Limit Increase (PCLI) $4K --> $5800

• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 20% ($15,324/$75,600)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: Accounts reporting 88%, 51%, 33%, and 6 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 12/18 (67%)

Results: No score change to any FICO 8 model

Discussion: Dammit, Synchrony! I mean, thanks for the PCLI, but you had to report it off-cycle?!? No score changes caused, so I guess it's ok. Lol.

---

Event #6: AFCU Cash Rewards Visa reports balance change from $2535/$5K (51%) --> $0/$5K

• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 17% ($12,789/$75,600)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: Accounts reporting 88%, 33%, and 7 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 11/18 (61%)

Results: EQ8 +28; TU8 +26; EX8 +22

Discussion: Whoa, Nellie! Folks, I expected a score increase when this reported, but I did not expect >+20 across the board! My hypothesis is that I got the previously noted raw dollar and AWB (EQ8 only) losses right back for crossing back below their respective scoring thresholds, and then netted +19 on TU8 and EQ8, and +18 on EX8 for the individual utilization of this card going from 51% to 0%. It's important to remember that my BofA card is still sitting there reporting 88% individual utilization, but having this one drop <50% (presumably) still caused a nice gain!

---

(Non) Event #7: Synchrony OnePay Wal-Mart reports balance change from $831/$2500 (33%) --> $536/$2500 (21%)

• Aggregate Revolving Utilization: 17% ($12,494/$75,600)
• Individual Revolving Utilization: One account reporting 88%, and 8 others all <30%
• Accounts With Balances (AWB%): 11/18 (61%)

Results: No score change to any FICO 8 model

Discussion: Other than the 'big one' (88%), my last revolver reporting >30% individual utilization dropped <30% with no score change, so those 'keeping it low' should definitely keep worrying about 'keeping it low'. Ha!

---

Final Thoughts: For my profile/scorecard, 30% individual utilization does not appear to be a scoring threshold, at least not with another card reporting at 88%, but 50% individual utilization definitely is, and a powerful one at that! It begs the question of whether the penalty assessed by the algorithms has greater signal strength for 'repeat offenders', so to speak, such as Payment History's Frequency metric, which adds additional penalties for having more than one late payment. Was 50% individual utilization on that card costing me so many points bc I had 2 accounts reporting >50%, or would the signal strength have been the same if I only had one? You can bet I'll be coming back to test this in the future!

I believe $15K(ish) is a probable raw dollar scoring threshold on my profile/scorecard, but I'll need to test with values a lot smaller than $2K balance changes to truly try to isolate it. I also think there's an AWB% threshold somewhere around 65% on EQ8.

Ok, I think that's it for now. As always, I'd love to hear thoughts, have discussions, and learn if anyone has similar data points that align to any these. Til next time...

~Sooner

Note: Before I even start, yes, I fed three screenshots of each of my FICO 8 scores from myFICO into Gemini, and asked it to compile them into a cool graphic for me. None of the pertinent data is altered in any way. If I was going to do something like that, I'd have asked it give me higher scores!

---

A couple of weeks ago, I ran into one of those situations where the stars were aligned, and all of my open accounts were reported consistently across all 3 credit reports. Because I'm a FICO metrics junkie and I can't help myself, I took a minute to collect all my reports and FICO 8 scores to do a little comparison and analysis, especially knowing that my last dirty report (Equifax) will be clean in the next month or two. Here are some observations, data points, and random 'musings' of a FICO metrics junkie.

Pertinent Credit Profile Information:

FICO 8 Scorecard:

• TU/EX - Clean/Thick/Mature/New Revolver
• EQ - Dirty/Delinquent/Mature (1 settled charge off, $0 balance, last reported in 2021)

Average Age of Accounts (AAoA)	TU: 5y5m; EX: 5y2m; EQ: 5y6m
Age of Oldest Revolving Account (AoORA)	10y5m
Average Age of Revolving Accounts (AAoRA)	4y7m
Age of Youngest/Revolving Account (AoYA/AoYRA)	3m
Aggregate Revolving Utilization	44%
Highest Individual Revolving Utilization	2 cards >70%; 2 cards >50%; 1 card >30%
Aggregate Installment Loan Utilization	61%
Accounts With Balances (AWB)	11/16 (69%)

Observations and Discussion:

Ok, let's start with the elephant in the room. The credit report on a dirty scorecard has the highest FICO 8 score of them all? Yes, it does. We went over how that's possible, and even expected in certain cases, in quite a bit of depth in this thread. The short version is that there's no New Revolver 'penalty' on the dirty scorecards, and the signal strength of many Amount of Debt scoring metrics is much stronger on clean scorecards than it is on the dirty scorecards. It still cracks me up that the presence of an aged, major derogatory is sort of 'masking' my new revolving account and relatively high reported Amount of Debt metrics enough on the dirty profile to completely overcome whatever penalty the algorithm is still assessing for the presence of a major derogatory. Aren't FICO metrics fun?

---

Now, let's do reason codes. Some of them are self-explanatory. Some require digging a bit deeper. Some, I want to hear opinions/discussions, bc some of what we thought we 'knew' about some of these just isn't fully jiving to me.

The 'No-Brainer' Reason Codes

Code #39 (EQ Only) - Serious delinquency: Yep, my last settled charge off with a DoFD of July 2019, $0 reported balance, last reported in late 2021, is still on my EQ report, set to fall off in June, most likely. It's about as aged as a derogatory can be at this point, with TPOD frozen nearly 5 years ago, but the signal strength is still strong enough for it to be the #1 negative scoring factor on my EQ profile, and it's keeping me on a dirty scorecard. It's also negating the New Revolver 'penalty' and reducing the signal strength of Amount of Debt metrics enough to where my dirty EQ profile currently ends up yielding my highest FICO 8 score. Oh, the irony, huh?

Code #10 (All 3) - Proportion/Ratio of balances to credit limits on bank/national revolving or other revolving accounts is too high: Dang, Sooner, what kind of credit scoring 'expert' are you? Don't you know that high reported utilization will tank your scores? Yes, I do. I also know that it has no memory. As it's currently reported, if I were applying for credit tomorrow, both my aggregate (44%) and highest individual card (>70%) utilization could be high enough to be a red flag to some lenders, and they're both currently costing me a fairly significant amount of points. Since I'm not, who cares?

Code #33 (EQ & TU) - Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high: Yea, I have 2 non-mortgage installment loans currently reporting 61% aggregate utilization. I'm interested to see if this code will stay all the way until I get <9.5% and trigger the 'bonus', or if there's some threshold that yields points and/or makes this code go away before I get to <9.5%.

---

The "I Understand, but I Don't Really Understand' Reason Codes:

Code #6 (EX Only) - Too many consumer finance company accounts: I have several accounts on my reports that may code as CFAs. However, I only have this code on EX, and I believe an Affirm 'BNPL' loan is the culprit. According to Affirm's website, beginning in April 2025, they 'standardized' the reporting of their BNPL accounts to code as BNPL loans, which are currently not factored into traditional scoring models. However, any BNPL accounts reported prior to April 2025 may affect your traditional credit scores, bc they may not have been coded correctly as BNPL. In that case, they'd be reported as a traditional installment loan, and we already know that Affirm, and their partner lender Celtic Bank, codes as a CFA when included in FICO scoring. I have one...not coded correctly as BNPL...only reported to EX, and I believe it's triggering this code. I've written my own version of a 'goodwill letter' to Affirm asking them to either 'correct' the coding of this account as BNPL, or request that EX removes it. If my request is granted, we'll see what happens with this code.

Code #12 (TU Only) - Length of time revolving accounts have been established: According to proprietary FICO documents shared only with lenders, the 'official' explanation for this code is "The age of your oldest revolving account (AoORA) and/or the average age of your revolving accounts (AAoRA) is relatively low." We believe the AoORA metric maxes out at 20 years, and the AAoRA metric maxes out at 9 years. Currently, my AoORA is 10y5m, and my AAoRA is 4y7m. I'm just over half of the age needed to max on both metrics, so I sort of 'buy' FICO's explanation, but I really think that another metric...AoYRA...somehow fits in this reason code. My AoYRA is only 3 months. That would make a lot more sense. There are several threads on the myFICO forums where very knowledgeable contributors are convinced that this reason code is actually only triggered when AoYRA is <12 months, putting you on a New Revolver scorecard. I'd buy that one too...except...if that's true, why do I only have this code on TU8? My EX report is clean too, so if it were tied specifically to the New Revolver 'penalty', I should have it on EX8 too. So, I understand the factors or combination of factors that could triggering this code, but I don't know for sure which one(s) truly are, and I don't know why I don't have this code on EX or EQ as the numbers are all the same. Of course, the dirty scorecard on EQ could be a factor in this somehow. Thoughts?

Code #14 (EX & EQ) - Length of time accounts have been established: Again, FICO's 'official explanation is "The age of your oldest account and/or the average age of your accounts is relatively low." Birdman was convinced that Age of Oldest Account is not a scoring factor in FICO 8, but is instead a segmentation factor for reassigning your profile from a Young --> Mature scorecard at 3 years. FICO's explanation for this reason code seems to imply otherwise, but maybe not, and maybe the reference to AoOA in the explanation is specifically only in reference to segmentation at 3 years, and it's all about AAoA after that. Also, yet again, does AoYA play a part here, even though it's not mentioned in the official explanation? Here's what I know...my AoOA is 11y8m, my AAoA varies just a bit between the 3 reports from 5y2m, 5y5m, and 5y6m, and my AoYA is 3m. I understand the factors or combination of factors that could triggering this code, but I don't know for sure which one(s) truly are, and I don't know why I have this code on EX and EQ vs the revolver-specific code on TU. Thoughts?

Code #30 (TU & EX) - Time since most recent account opening is too short: In the CSP, Birdman tied this code directly to AoYA, saying it can be triggered by any new account, on any scorecard (so, not specific to the New Revolver penalty), and DPs suggest it could linger on certain profiles until AoYA =/> 24 months, but disappears on 'most' profiles when AoYA =/>12 months. So, if this code is tied specifically to AoYA, then it could go right on up to the 'no-brainer' list. My AoYA is only 3 months. It's also easily possible that it's lurking at #5 on EQ, and it'll make its appearance in the top 4 once the last derogatory falls off my EQ report. The bigger question...to me...is if AoYA has it's 'own' reason code, then that makes it less likely that it's also part of Code #14, which makes the signal strength of that code on EX8 and EQ8 really perplexing to me.

---

Ok, I think that's it for now. I'd love some thoughts/discussion from my fellow FICO junkies on some of this. Does age of revolving accounts just have more signal strength on TU8 than the others? Is AoYRA account somehow in play in Code #12 on TU8 that isn't in play on the others? If not, then is AoORA 10y5m and AAoRA 4y7m really 'young' enough to make it the 2nd most impactful metric on TU8? If AoYA isn't part of Code #14 on EX8 and EQ8 and AoOA is only a segmentation factor, then is an AAoA of 5y2m really 'young' enough to be the 2nd most impactful metric on clean EX8 and 3rd on dirty EQ8? I look forward to any thoughts, DPs anyone has, and discussion/debate on the questions I asked, or anything else that stands out to anyone.

~Sooner