LVNV and GEMB/LOWE's GW info???

[ScoreBooster]

You count the months/years since the accounts were opened (BTW, the closed ones count as well) and add them all together. Then, you divide them by the number of accounts.

Example:

Account 1: 5 years old

Account 2: 3 years old

Account 3: 8 years old.

That's 16:3 , AAoA is 5 years 4 months.

[mocha76]

Are these all of the revolving accounts, such as credit cards/installment accounts?  Or should I include mortgages and student loans as well?

---

@ScoreBooster wrote:

You count the months/years since the accounts were opened (BTW, the closed ones count as well) and add them all together. Then, you divide them by the number of accounts.

Example:

Account 1: 5 years old

Account 2: 3 years old

Account 3: 8 years old.

That's 16:3 , AAoA is 5 years 4 months.

---

[ScoreBooster]

As far as I know, that includes EVERY account - even the derogatory ones.

[llecs]

---

ScoreBooster wrote:

---

@llecs wrote:
It doesn't matter if it is located in Accounts or Collections. If it says collection anywhere in the status, comments, etc., it is scored as a CA. IMO, the ultimate goal should be to get it removed vs fixed. Everytime I look at a post and there's discussion as to whether or not it should be reported as a factoring account, or if it has lates, or if it updates, or if it is listed as opened or closed, I mentally sigh and think that all efforts should go towards removing it vs. making it look better. It is impossible to get a CA to report as a positive account. There's no reason you'd ever want to. Any lender would know what LVNV is. And yes, I had them too and they did update with 120+ days. They rank up there in all time bad CAs.

---

I disagree. If myfico "reads" it as a collection, why isn't it listed as such?

On Equifax, I have 5 CAs reporting as "regular" accounts - and when I'm going on the collection-tab, it reads "You don't have any collections." How come? And even IF it would be scored as a collection, the "1 month term" keeps the damage fresh.

So in addition, I'd like to know why the scoring-system tells me my score is so low because I missed a payment last month ALTHOUGH I'm paying on time for almost 3 years?!

See, the issue is not to have a positive collection account. Nobody is talking about that. The issue is that if it is wrongly reported, the NEGATIVE impact simply won't age off. That's my issue. I don't even mind having them on my file, but not as an active installment account with a regular monthly late-payment.

---

If it says collection anywhere within LVNV it is read as a CA; doesn't matter where it is located. Using yours as an example, do all 5 mention "collection" somewhere?

The lack of a collections remark would be because they are reporting in Accounts.

There's some debate as to whether or not a CA updating would have any impact on the score. I argue yes that it does. IMO, the continued updating of the DOLA (it should change monthly for you) is impacting you.

The update with a new 120 day wouldn't have any impact. FICO reads the most severe late. In this case, if labeled somewhere as a CA within the comments, etc., the most severe late would be the CA itself. The second worse baddie, the 120 day, isn't factored into scoring.

[llecs]

---

ScoreBooster wrote:
As far as I know, that includes EVERY account - even the derogatory ones.

---

Yep. ALL OC accounts, good or bad, opened or closed. PRs and CAs are not included into AAoA.

ScoreBooster, have you figured AAoA on your own, including these 5, and compared it to the AAoA listed on your CRs?

[ScoreBooster]

Ilecs,

That's one of the strange things as well - they all do mention "collection" - they even mention "factoring account".

Here's the link to the other thread where you can see two accounts from the TU-report. On myfico, RJM is listed as a collection but LVNV is listed as a regular account.

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=rebuildingcredit&message.id=82385#M82385

What I'm concerned about is that the scoring-system reads these accounts as OPEN accounts (and I'm talking about the status, not the type) - and in combination with a monthly late payment, that's bad (I have 3 accounts alone with LVNV).

I simply have no explaination why the system keeps telling me I missed a payment a month ago. If it would be recognized as a collection, could I miss payments on that at all? I simply don't know..

[ScoreBooster]

ScoreBooster, have you figured AAoA on your own, including these 5, and compared it to the AAoA listed on your CRs?

---

Oh, I have more than 30 accounts on file and a relatively short credit-history. I don't think these (in addition to that, mid-aged) accounts would make a measurable difference.

[llecs]

---

ScoreBooster wrote:

ScoreBooster, have you figured AAoA on your own, including these 5, and compared it to the AAoA listed on your CRs?

---

Oh, I have more than 30 accounts on file and a relatively short credit-history. I don't think these (in addition to that, mid-aged) accounts would make a measurable difference.

---

Now I don't know the answer (would have to dig up some of my old reports to confirm), but if you calculated AAoA and these weren't included, then there's another clue that FICO isn't factoring these as an installment account.

[ScoreBooster]

And on the TU-report, where it indicates my last missed payment happened a month ago, the 3 LVNV accounts AREN'T even reported "+120 days late" - they are reported as "collection account" and don't show a payment-history. With TU, even the new CA-account that might have caused this remark is correctly reported as a collection. It would be strange if the system would recognize a new collection-account as a recently missed payment..

BTW, the LVNV-accounts with TU - along others - are/were currently under dispute. I don't see how that could make a difference but I just thought I mention it as well. When checking the dispute-status with TU, they are telling me they will be done in 2 days and everything but 1 account has been checked so far.