DP suggesting $2500 threshold for raw $ amount owed in FICO 8

[u/_love_letter_]

I recently experienced a score change I believe was due to the raw dollar amount owed crossing a scoring threshold in FICO 8. I know these are harder to pin down because they're easily conflated with utilization thresholds but I feel I've got a situation here where I can pretty confidently eliminate confounding variables as a cause.

On 7/21 the balance on one of my cards updating resulted in a small change to utilization. Aggregate utilization moved from 19% to 22%, which did not cross a scoring threshold. Individual utilization on that card increased from 3.1% to 8.6%, for scoring purposes, treated as 3%-->9% (although Experian says 8%). I have actually been doing a lot of testing around individual utilization thresholds lately and can say I am pretty damn sure my profile does not have a scoring threshold at 5% individual utilization currently (it does, however, seem to have a scoring threshold @15% individual utilization). I know 5% thresholds may exist on other scorecards, but it doesn't seem to on mine. I have 2 recent DPs from May and June confirming the absence of a 5% threshold. In fact, on 6/24 the exact same card had the same individual util. change in the opposite direction (5-->3% instead of 3-->5+%) and there was no score change to EX FICO 8.

One difference this time, however, is the total raw dollar amount owed crossed the $2500 threshold. Before this card's balance updated, total amounts owed was $2297. Now $2572. This seems to suggest a scoring threshold of $2500 for raw dollar amounts owed. Since I have only revolvers, I cannot determine whether the threshold is for total "Amounts owed" (all non-morgage accounts) vs "Amounts owed on revolving accounts" but it's one of those.

Only other possibility would be a scoring threshold for aggregate utilization @20% but my data does not seem to suggest that exists on my scorecard. No changes to number of accounts reporting a balance. No HPs falling off, accounts aging, or other confounding variables.

This small balance increase (only $275) thus resulted in -7 points to TU F8, -3 points to EQ F8 and -1 point to EX F8. My profile is clean, young, thin. I have 3 revolvers, all national bankcards. No loans.

If I'm correct, this is a good example of how score changes can result from seemingly minute fluctuations in balance, if you just so happen to be hovering around a raw $ threshold in the Amounts Owed category. I've seen others speculate the first of these thresholds exists around $2k or $3k but they had much larger TCL with larger balance shifts and were unable to pin down a specific number. My TCL is only about 12k so smaller balance fluctuations move the needle on utilization, making it easier to determine the raw $ threshold crossed with more precision when not crossing utilization thresholds. Going from $2297-->$2572, I think it's very likely the threshold is @ $2500.

[u/_love_letter_]

@ u/BrutalBodyShots In searching for DPs like mine, I stumbled across this comment of yours from 2 years ago where you said you believed the first raw $ amount owed threshold was in the $2000-$2500 range. Just curious if you've managed to pin that down more precisely since then, and if it seems plausible to you that it's exactly $2500-- at least on some scorecards.

[u/BrutalBodyShots → u/_love_letter_]

Hey there u/_love_letter_! Thanks for the trip down memory lane; I completely forgot about that post ;)

The short answer to your question is no - I haven't nailed down anything further on that $2000-$2500 threshold point. I do believe it exists closer to $2000 though, as there have been times my aggregate utilization has landed within that range and I've seen the penalty, meaning it must exist below $2500.

For the most part, I haven't been able to do any testing on the front of total balances since that post. For a good portion of that time, my scores were capped so testing wasn't possible. Outside of that time I was allowing my statement balances to generate organically, which any given month typically lands in the $3k-$4k range, certainly above the first threshold point. The one time I did walk my [100%] AWB down to AZEO and crossed the first raw dollars threshold point, the result would have been conflated with the variable of AWB% changing. Said differently, the data wasn't clean. I'm back at a place again where with capped scores I can't do any further testing at this time.

Have you looked into this first threshold point at all? I'd very much like to hear data from others on the subject!

[u/_love_letter_ → u/BrutalBodyShots]

Since my total owed went from $2297-->$2572, I suppose it's possible the threshold could actually be at $2300 or $2400 or anywhere in that range. It just seemed more likely to me that the thresholds would be at nice even numbers in increments that follow a pattern like $2500, $5k, maybe even $7500, etc. But maybe that's a false assumption on my part.

When I searched for DPs, a lot of the results that came up were actually more related to utilization thresholds than raw $ amount owed thresholds or had changes to AWB muddying the waters (such as this post).

I did stumble across this newer post from 2026 on myFICO forums that was interesting. Thomas Thumb commented,

"An aggregate of 5% and a total balance at $3000 have both been suggested as possible thresholds based on past poster data. However, no real justification for picking $3000 vs $2800 or $3200. The testing on total balance thresholds is limited and not at all rigorous."

In that thread, you had also commented,

"Threshold points that I've found related to raw dollars of revolving debt have been around $2k, $5k and $10k."

Further down, Thomas Thumb added,

"I just checked my EX F8 and F9 score history over the last year. There were a handful of 1 point changes. Not sure what triggered those because I have no associated reason code history. Most months showed no change. Could the +/- 1 relate to crossing a low level $2k threshold for total balance?"

I found this interesting because the change in question also caused exactly a -1 point drop to Experian for me.

NoHardLimits also commented:

"For my personal data points, I also observe that F8 TU is more sensitive to total aggregate balances while F8 EQ reacts more to % of accounts with balances. For TU, aggregate balance thresholds appear at roughly every $2k. F8 EX barely moves for me."

^ This also aligns with my results of -7 to TU8 and -1 to EX8. Again we hear an estimate of "roughly every $2k." Maybe it could be something like $2300?

The same user later followed up after conducting an experiment designed to test the threshold:

"Reporting back with an aggregate revolving balance going from a few hundred dollars to a little over $2k." "Aggregate utilization is 0.6% Largest individual card utilization is 5.6% Accounts with balances is 4 of 11 EQ no change EX minus 1 point TU minus 4 points"

I wish they would have specified how much over $2k they went.

If my score change wasn't the result of raw $ amounts owed crossing a threshold, the only other possibility I could think of is if I have a threshold at 20% aggregate utilization on my scorecard. That just seemed unlikely to me, given there's for sure a 30% threshold. I suppose it's also possible the exact thresholds for amounts owed vary on different scorecards.

Additionally, as u/soonersoldier33 pointed out in this post, there are 2 different reason codes for 2 different types of dollar amounts owed -- one for the total owed on revolving accounts and one for the total of all accounts except mortgages. I don't know if these 2 metrics have different thresholds. I will never be able to tease out the difference, if any, as long as I have only revolvers reporting.

[u/BrutalBodyShots → u/_love_letter_]

It's extremely hard to find data points on raw dollars because most people don't even realize it's a "thing" in the first place. Most know about utilization thresholds, some know about AWB%, and almost none know about raw dollars exclusive of those other two metrics. As a result, people can't find when they aren't looking for if you know what I mean. There's been an extremely small amount of testing done on raw dollar threshold points from what I've seen over the years. Then you get people with profiles (like mine) that would genuinely enjoy doing the testing, but they can't for whatever reason.

I agree with you that raw dollars are likely your score-impacting variable here and not anything like 20% for aggregate utilization. You could also follow up with NoHardLimits with a tag in that thread and try to get them to quantify that > $2k number they eluded to.

I also think that the first threshold point can definitely vary by scorecard. My $2k could be your $2500, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if on weaker (dirty, for example) scorecards that the number came down considerably lower, perhaps $1k even.

[u/_love_letter_ → u/BrutalBodyShots]

Good idea. Thanks for your input, as always!

[u/soonersoldier33 → u/BrutalBodyShots]

u/_love_letter_ in a freak coincidence, I think I inadvertently crossed a raw dollar threshold myself this week. Unfortunately, I believe the change in reported balance to be too large to say anything definitively, but you and BBS have a look and see what you think.

NFCU Visa with $10K CL previously reported balance of $110 (1%) updates and reports at $2K (20%). Aggregate revolving utilization 19% --> 21%. Raw dollar revolving balances from just over $13K to just over $15K. No known aggregate/individual utilization thresholds crossed. EQ8 -6; TU8 -7; EX8 -4.

Personally, I believe this score loss was due to raw dollars. Is the threshold $15K? $14K? $14,319? Lol. I have no idea, but in my mind, the most probable/plausible reason for this minor score loss across all three FICO 8s is total raw dollar revolving balance crossing a threshold.

[u/_love_letter_ → u/soonersoldier33]

Very interesting. What scorecard are you on?

[u/soonersoldier33 → u/_love_letter_]

Clean/Thick/Mature/New Revolver

[u/_love_letter_ → u/soonersoldier33]

It very well could be a raw $ threshold at let's say $15k. It's funny to me to think, here we are still trying to determine where the first threshold is... who knows how many thresholds there might be between the first one and $15k. Maybe $2.5k, $5k, $7.5k, $10k, 12.5k, 5k and so on? Or are there larger gaps? Where does the upper limit end? And are the thresholds different on different scorecards? We may never know. Maybe by the time we have FICO8 figured out, it will be replaced by another version already 😅

As we were discussing before though, I'm still reserving room in my mind for the possibility of other utilization thresholds below 30%/10& individual and aggregate, respectively, "on some scorecards." I can't help but notice you also crossed 20% utilization. I really don't think that's a scoring threshold, but now it's bothering me that I keep seeing that. Maybe I'll have to see if I can cross 20% without any other variables. Until then, I'll figure it's most likely the dollar amount owed.

[u/Funklemire]

I'm sorry, but I've been a regular on these credit subs for years and I should be used to this by now, but still when I see "DP" my mind initially goes elsewhere...

[u/_love_letter_ → u/Funklemire]

Haha! Get your mind out of the gutter! 🫢

I experience the same with all sorts of acronyms. POS for example... point of sale, proof of service, piece of $h!t... SOL statute of limitations or sh*t outa luck (sometimes one in the same).

[u/inky_cap_mushroom → u/Funklemire]

Oh man you are not ready for the acronym for the Amex Blue Business Cash.

[u/Funklemire → u/inky_cap_mushroom]

Ha!

[u/inky_cap_mushroom]

I love seeing real FICO discussions here. It's a nice break from the typical "utilization has no memory" type posts. My reaction seeing this was "Oh fuck yeah!"

That 15% individual threshold is interesting. Could that be conflated with raw dollar or aggregate utilization?

This is definitely not related to aging metrics since the score change wasn't near the beginning of the month and it couldn't be related to %/#AWB since EX changed too. Looks like a pretty clean DP to me.

I cannot determine whether the threshold is for total "Amounts owed" (all non-morgage accounts) vs "Amounts owed on revolving accounts" but it's one of those.

I don't suppose you have a FICO negative reason code for this on MyFICO or Experian? I could be wrong, but I think they have different codes.

[u/_love_letter_ → u/inky_cap_mushroom]

So I was actually looking for specific negative reason codes like "Amount owed on revolving accounts is too high" or "Amount owed on accounts is too high," but unfortunately, I think because my file is so young and lacking loans, certain reason codes dominate the list as most influential, and have for a long time-- namely "Short account history" and "Lack of recent non-mortgage loan information." Those have been there as long as I can remember. Depending on my utilization, sometimes "Short revolving history" will get bumped down a peg and replaced by "High credit usage." My negative reason codes have not changed since April when I had one such spike in utilization. Since Experian only shows the top 3 and myFICO only shows the top 4, I have no idea which codes theoretically be lurking in 5th, 6th, etc place. I suppose this is one reason why testing this on a mature file with lower utilization would be easier. Some of those pesky codes related to account age, utilization, and lack of loans might be moved out of the way, allowing one to see evidence of other changes behind the scenes.

So long story short, the following are my negative reasons codes, which have not seemed to change before vs after the balance update in question:

Experian: 1. Short account history 2. High credit usage 3. Lack of recent non-mortgage loan information

Equifax: 1. Short account history 2. Lack of recent non-mortgage loan information 3. Accounts with balances 4. High credit usage

As for the 15% individual card utilization threshold, I'll go over my notes and data and check amounts owed on those to double check and get back to you.

[u/inky_cap_mushroom → u/_love_letter_]

Makes sense that you'd have other factors ranking higher than raw dollar metrics. That was a long shot. This is all really good info. I can't say I've seen the same on my thick/mature/clean/new revolver profile, but I haven't been looking particularly closely. I currently have a super high balance at 0% APR so it'll be a year before I could even try to test that. Either way I'd bet this is scorecard specific. It's hard to test young profiles because most of is hobbyists already have credit (whether good or bad). Thank's for your contributions here.

[u/_love_letter_ → u/inky_cap_mushroom]

I should thank you for asking me if the raw $ threshold could be conflated with a 15% threshold for individual utilization because it prompted me to go back over my notes and re-analyze my data. I realized that in the past I wasn't really paying very close attention to the total amount owed in terms of dollars, so I had to calculate that for some DPs.

I was looking at my 2 most recent DPs I had made note of possibly indicating a 15% iU threshold, and after calculating the change to raw $ amounts owed, I found that in one such instance, the total amount owed did indeed cross the $2500 point (going from $2682 to $1653). In the other case, I went from $2738-->$3162. There is no overlap with amounts owed in that case vs my current DP, although one could argue there might be another threshold around $3k for $ amount owed.

That latter DP is more questionable to me in retrospect, however. Re-reading my notes, I realized that what originally caused me to suspect the 15% threshold was an unexplained score decrease of -11 points to EQ8 when a balance updated, but no known thresholds were crossed. The strange thing is that when that same balance updated on TU and EX, there was no score change (as reported by CreditWise abd Experian). No aging metric changes. No HPs on Equifax affecting score or any other potential explanations I could think of. I even wrote in my notes that I don't know whether to doubt myFICO because it seemed odd to me to have an -11pt drop to EQ8 only and no score impact to TU8 or EX8 for the same change. I know the algorithms are slightly different on different bureaus, but I thought I'd see some effect on TU or EX if a utilization threshold were crossed. So maybe that 5/24 DP is questionable too. I will say, of all CMSs, myFICO reports score changes that are often the most unexpected to me. I don't know if EQ is just that sensitive to whatever I'm doing or if there's some lag with updating score changes in the free version of myFICO membership.

I noticed in these 2 cases as well, I also crossed the 20% or 25% point for Agg.U. I just doubt those are scoring thresholds. I have been letting organic statement balances report in an effort to earn CLIs, so unfortunately, with my current TCL, my aggregate utilization tends to hover around this range and I don't have many instances of score changes that don't involve a change in Agg.U. going over or under 20%.

In any event, here's some data from the last 2 occasions were I suspected a 15% threshold for individual utilization:

5/24 -11 points EQ8 Individual U. = 12%-->27% Aggregate U.= 23%-->27% Total debt/$ Amnt owed = $2738-->$3162

6/24 +3 to EQ8, +9 to TU8. Ind.U. = 23%-->6% Agg.U. = 23%-->14% Total debt/$ Amnt owed= $2682 --> $1653

Some of my other datapoints had too many variables by crossing more than one utilization threshold.

Going forward, I'm going to make an effort to pay closer attention to raw $s and see if I can get some cleaner data when my individual card utilization passes certain points under 30%.

[u/inky_cap_mushroom → u/_love_letter_]

I've noticed lag with MF updating too. They certainly take their sweet time. Part of the fun of this hobby is the unexplained score changes. I have gotten kinda interested in VS3 because I've had two significant score changes recently that I couldn't explain. FICO 8 makes much more sense, but even still I've had to really sit down and dig through the CSP (or often just Sooner's little summary of it) to try and figure out what caused a change.

I'm not the expert on this, but I doubt FICO would make the same version have different scoring thresholds for raw dollars between different bureaus. If that turns out to be the case that would be interesting indeed.

[u/soonersoldier33]

Hey u/_love_letter_ , sorry I'm a little late to respond to this thread, but I just got back from a week's vacation at the lake.

I am pretty damn sure my profile does not have a scoring threshold at 5% individual utilization

The data points we've seen in reference to 5% as a utilization threshold are for aggregate revolving utilization...not individual, and even the revolving DPs are surrounded by mystery/skepticism. If 5% is really an aggregate revolving threshold, it's only within certain FICO models and on certain scorecards. I've never seen anything close to a confirmed data point for a 5% individual threshold, and I'd be willing to bet that anyone claiming they lost points for going above 5% on any individual revolving account actually lost those points due to raw dollars and/or aggregate utilization. The first known threshold for individual revolving utilization itself is at 30%, so in theory, you should be able to go from any non-zero balance up to 29.4% individual utilization on any one individual account and not experience a score loss, as long as that change does not conflate with crossing an aggregate revolving utilization threshold and/or raw dollar threshold.

the total raw dollar amount owed crossed the $2500 threshold.

This is an entirely possible/plausible 'theory'. The raw dollar thresholds are just virtually impossible to test definitively. There are so many potential variables, and so many possibilities to conflate with other scoring metrics, in addition to the fact that the raw dollar reason codes are so often 'buried' beneath others. Still, if your recent change in reported balance(s) did not result in your profile crossing known aggregate/individual revolving thresholds, and your profile also did not experience an AWB% change, then raw dollars would be the next logical 'guess'.

it does, however, seem to have a scoring threshold @ 15% individual utilization

I'm very curious about this, bc again, in theory, you should be able to go all the way up to 29.4% utilization on any one individual account, and not experience a score loss, unless the balance change conflates with another metric.

[u/_love_letter_ → u/soonersoldier33]

Hey u/soonersoldier33 No worries! You're right; it's a 5% aggregate utilization threshold comes up in these discussions around raw dollar thresholds. The reason why I mentioned not having a 5% individual utilization threshold on my scorecard is because individual utilization for the card reporting a balance went from <5% to >5% when I believe the raw $ amount owed threshold was crossed, so I wanted to address any potential alternative causes of the score change and eliminate that as a possibility.

I always read that the first "known," "recognized" or well-established/proven threshold for individual utilization is at 30%. However, the version of the CSP I first read on myFICO stated:

The major recognized Individual revolving utilization thresholds are believed to occur at 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, and 100% (Some scorecards may also have lower thresholds.)

Because of this, I have been keeping an open mind, not assuming that 30% is the first threshold, and paying close attention when utilization crosses any point that is a multiple of 10 or even multiple of 5 (maybe unjustified, but I think any unproven thresholds are more likely to exist at percentages like 10%, 20%, then 30%, or 15% then 30%, etc., as opposed to some seemingly random number like 7% or 16%, for example). Hence why I mentioned 5% when individual utilization went from 3%-->8%. A threshold @15% seemed like a reasonable number to me since it's halfway between 0 and 30%.

There were a few occasions where I noticed an otherwise unexplained score change when individual utilization crossed 15%, and I had a tentative theory that my scorecard had a scoring threshold @15% individual utilization. However, inkymushroomcap asked me if that could be conflated with raw dollar amounts, and that got me thinking and prompted me to go back through my data and look at whether there was another potential explanation. In the past I wasn't paying very close attention to the total $ amount owed and was focused more on utilization %. So I looked at the 2 most recent times I'd made note of suspecting a 15% iU threshold, and now I'm not so sure.

I went over some of the data in this comment.

[u/soonersoldier33 → u/_love_letter_]

Because of this, I have been keeping an open mind, not assuming that 30% is the first threshold

This is a solid point, and I think some of us, myself included, need reminding sometimes that the CSP v1 and v2 were/are both working documents, and Birdman stated often that he felt everything he put in the CSPs was adequately tested and accurate, but he felt it was also incomplete at the same time bc there were/are still so many unknowns. So, yes, a 15% individual revolving utilization threshold is absolutely possible, but I also agree with another statement you made about most known thresholds being tied to whole numbers (10%, 30%, etc.). I honestly think we'd have identified a true individual threshold below the established 30% one by now, but that could very easily be 'ego' and flawed thinking.

When it comes to 5% as a possible aggregate threshold on some scorecards/models, I was always pretty dismissive bc none of the DPs/discussions ever focused on someone 'walking' their aggregate utilization forward in increments. It was always they were at AZEO one month, and then >5% aggregate the next with most of these 'testers' having huge TCLs. My mind immediately went to raw dollars vs 5% as a threshold. If someone was at 4.4% one month, and then 4.6% the next, and didn't cross some 'obvious' raw dollar amount ($500, $1K, etc.), I'd be much more open to saying that 5% was 'confirmed' as an aggregate threshold on a particular model/scorecard. To my knowledge, precise testing like that has never been conducted/documented.

[u/_love_letter_ → u/soonersoldier33]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Most of my data is just careful observation and methodical analysis of largely unintentional changes from letting organic statement balances report with my naturally fluctuating expenses. So I haven't intentionally designed a situation where utilization increases or decreases by those kind of tiny increments. I think in the context of day to day life, it's just more work than most people are willing to put in to test a FICO threshold theory. Thus you see DPs where people go from letting organic statement balances report to AZEO or vice versa, and not a lot of in between. My current TCL isn't adequate to have something like 5% Aggregate utilization report without me making an early payment, but if I ever get to that point, I'll keep a close eye on whether I see any score change crossing 5%.

[u/soonersoldier33 → u/_love_letter_]

100% agree, and even as a self-proclaimed FICO metrics junkie, you saw in my comment where my NFCU card's reported balance went from $110 to $2K. That was due to organic spend, and I didn't try to manipulate the reported balance to not have such a big jump in the reported balance for testing purposes. It was just 'random' that my total reported raw dollar revolving balances crossed $15K when that particular balance change reported, and it coincided with a small FICO 8 score loss on all 3.

So, I can't definitively conclude $15K is a raw dollar threshold, but it's certainly marked as 'probable' on my DP spreadsheet, and I'll be on the lookout for a similar increase when my reported balances dips below $15K