@iv wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I indirectly got the answer to my first question above from another thread where CGID and TT chimed in. Basically, a score over 800 with different credit monitoring software often won't present any negative reason codes because you're within 50 points of the max score. So, when my AoYA dropped to 0 months, since my score was still over 800 it didn't generate a negative reason code because the monitoring software (CCT) simply doesn't provide them at that score.
Yup. It's important to note that the reason codes are still generated at any score level, just suppressed from display.
If you have a myFICO monitoring subscription, a useful trick is to look at the TU Alerts for "Score Change" - those (accidentally, I assume) still list the FICO8 reason codes in the "Details" section, even when the score is in the 800-850 range.
For example, my most recent FICO8 TU alert (from 842->845, with two new accounts opened in the last 6 months) showed:
- Too many accounts with balances.
- Too many inquiries last 12 months.
- Length of time accounts have been established.
- Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high.
And the "Length of time accounts have been established" code is clearly based on AoYA in this case, given that AAoA and AoOA are above any reported threshold.
Mind you, with the same report data, EX has been pinned at 850, and EQ has been bouncing back and forth between 850 and the 840s... so either the AoYA penalty is tiny, or the buffer over 850 is pretty large.
(The only reason TU seems to be bouncing just under 850 is a slightly higher number of HPs than the other two.)
Actually fairly certain that's the short history one in the myFICO interface; not "you opened this account too recently"
There's 4 different new account / short history reason codes in the algorithm, but I've had that one previously even on my former dirty file and my data and reason codes suggest AOYA ain't a thing there. I'll try to take a look this weekend and see if I can figure out what it translates too, did that with the tax lien file, haven't yet recently. Pro-tip on the TU interface, that's actually been a factor in their service for the last decade, product feature not a mistake anyway. MF is just built on the OEM products.
@Revelate wrote:
@iv wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I indirectly got the answer to my first question above from another thread where CGID and TT chimed in. Basically, a score over 800 with different credit monitoring software often won't present any negative reason codes because you're within 50 points of the max score. So, when my AoYA dropped to 0 months, since my score was still over 800 it didn't generate a negative reason code because the monitoring software (CCT) simply doesn't provide them at that score.
Yup. It's important to note that the reason codes are still generated at any score level, just suppressed from display.
If you have a myFICO monitoring subscription, a useful trick is to look at the TU Alerts for "Score Change" - those (accidentally, I assume) still list the FICO8 reason codes in the "Details" section, even when the score is in the 800-850 range.
For example, my most recent FICO8 TU alert (from 842->845, with two new accounts opened in the last 6 months) showed:
- Too many accounts with balances.
- Too many inquiries last 12 months.
- Length of time accounts have been established.
- Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high.
And the "Length of time accounts have been established" code is clearly based on AoYA in this case, given that AAoA and AoOA are above any reported threshold.
Mind you, with the same report data, EX has been pinned at 850, and EQ has been bouncing back and forth between 850 and the 840s... so either the AoYA penalty is tiny, or the buffer over 850 is pretty large.
(The only reason TU seems to be bouncing just under 850 is a slightly higher number of HPs than the other two.)
Actually fairly certain that's the short history one in the myFICO interface; not "you opened this account too recently"
There's 4 different new account / short history reason codes in the algorithm, but I've had that one previously even on my former dirty file and my data and reason codes suggest AOYA ain't a thing there. I'll try to take a look this weekend and see if I can figure out what it translates too, did that with the tax lien file, haven't yet recently. Pro-tip on the TU interface, that's actually been a factor in their service for the last decade, product feature not a mistake anyway. MF is just built on the OEM products.
Actually haven't seen the reason code for new account in FICO 8; possible it got combined into short history which I see on both FICO 04 / 8? Guess need more data, it does match though in my case.
^ agreed
I let my balances report naturally. Aggregate utilization has reported anywhere from 0.5% anf 7%. Not seen any impact on Enhanced Fico 8 scores in this range of utilization. I do see a minor impact associated with # cards reporting balances and that could mistakenly be attributed to a minor change in utilization - if not isolated.
In contrast to Fico, I have received my highest VS 3.0 score (835) with aggregate utilization around 4.5%. In the prior month when AG UT% was between 0.5% and 1%, my actual score was 3 points lower (832). I also see a drop with AG UT% in the 5% to 6.5% range. Over the last 6 to 9 months I have maintained AG UT% in the 0.5% to 3.0% range. VS3 score fluctuated between 828 and 833 - unable to get back to 835 at the lower UT%.
Note: TU VS3 simulations based on my profile (which is what CK uses) showed similar results. Extended range simulation results (presented previously) are pasted below.
