No FICO negative reason code for AoYA drop to 0?

[Anonymous]

I'm not understand this.  My negative reason codes (from CCT) for my FICO scores have said "no factors available" for as long as my reports have been clean, so as long as 8 months depending on the bureau.  Back in May I did open 3 new credit cards, so 5 months ago my AoYA dropped to 0.  Shouldn't this generate a negative reason code suggesting that my youngest account is too new?  No doubt a scoring penalty was administered, so why don't I see a negative reason code suggesting that?

A related question to AoYA if anyone knows.  Is the only break point at 12 months, or is there one at a younger point (say, 6 months)?  Are there any beyond 12 months, perhaps 24 months?  Thanks.

[Anonymous]

It varies, according to FICO's 2008 patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US8099356

Load up the chart from Figure 8.  It's awesome.

Basically, FICO's Empirica model seems to look at failure rate of people with new credit based on how much credit they already have.  Someone with limited credit who gets a new credit account shows an 80-90% higher risk than someone with a lot of available credit who gets a new account (their risk actually goes down 20%).  Someone with medium amount of credit has a risk of 10-20% I believe.

It's a really interesting and fantastic patent that begs the question as to how FICO itself calculates what limited or high capacity might mean.

This isn't particularly a FICO score patent but a CLI request enabler patent, but it still gives us a little more insight into what the heck might be happening and why one person is penalized while another person isn't.

It's feasible that you're a high capacity borrower, in which case a new account might not be a credit risk per FICO's empirical data.  In fact, you might be even less of a risk now.

[Anonymous]

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.

[DollyLama]

I wish I could add for data. Under my 3B monthly reports, under new credit, in August was 4 months rated fair, September report, only TU went from fair to good, with EQ and EX still showing fair. Although I did see a 2 pt gain in September on TU, I think it was where I went from 2 scoreable inquiries to 1 scoreable. All my scores are in the 700's. My next report for October with the account going 6 mos will pull in 6 days, and I will not have any CCs reporting between now and then that would generate an alert in score change. 

[Anonymous]

One reason I'd like a few useless Chase cards is to set their statement dates differently so I can elect to report a balance to trigger a new alert and then PIF to $0 so it triggers yet another alert.

[Anonymous]

---

Basically, FICO's Empirica model seems to look at failure rate of people with new credit based on how much credit they already have.  Someone with limited credit who gets a new credit account shows an 80-90% higher risk than someone with a lot of available credit who gets a new account (their risk actually goes down 20%).  Someone with medium amount of credit has a risk of 10-20% I believe.

---

Very interesting.  Is there some type of bracket in determining this?

Meaning:

$5k to $15k is consider someone with already low available credit

$20k to $50k is consider someone with already medium available credit

$55k to $100k is consider someone with already high available credit

i would think this would be the other way around.  Someone with already too much available credit has a greater risk of charging all the cards and filing ch7, the lost for the banks will be tremendous. But someone just getting started on the credit card world and with only say $10k in available credit, would be less likely to default?

Just curious...this is all so complex  lol

[Anonymous]

Well, capacity itself isn't necessarily part of FICO8 -- back in the BEACON days it was a separate FICO offering (called CCI) for lenders to use in addition to BEACON for credit approval and CLI worthiness (or CLD worthiness).

Equifax kinda disclosed a bit of here back in the day: https://www.equifax.com/pdfs/corp/Credit-Capacity-Index_Product%20Sheet_EFS-924-ADV-0.pdf

In addition, after BEACON was starting to go away and FICO8 started coming in, I believe FICO also started providing a different method to CCI called CCCS (I believe it's called FICO Credit Capacity Custom Solution, or close to that).  CCCS is also used by lenders on top of FICO8 to provide CLI/CLD as well as SL.

But I do think FICO8 has some use of "capacity" in generating scores well beyond the 850 we consider the top.  Before the term "utilization" was used by FICO, they actually called it "capacity" meaning 100%-utilization = capacity.  So if you were maxed out on utilization, you had 0 capacity, while if you PIF everything, you have 100% capacity.  Utilization is of course a big part of FICO8 scoring, but capacity itself might have some value within a particular score's range.

I bet there's some dollar value assigned to it instead of just percentages.  The reason for this is I know some VERY high overall limit folks who get dinged if their AZEO balance is lower than $300 or whatever.  Just letting $50 report is the same for them as letting $0 report on one card.  Unless FICO rounds down to $0 for people with crazy high overall capacity.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Well, capacity itself isn't necessarily part of FICO8 -- back in the BEACON days it was a separate FICO offering (called CCI) for lenders to use in addition to BEACON for credit approval and CLI worthiness (or CLD worthiness).

Equifax kinda disclosed a bit of here back in the day: https://www.equifax.com/pdfs/corp/Credit-Capacity-Index_Product%20Sheet_EFS-924-ADV-0.pdf

In addition, after BEACON was starting to go away and FICO8 started coming in, I believe FICO also started providing a different method to CCI called CCCS (I believe it's called FICO Credit Capacity Custom Solution, or close to that).  CCCS is also used by lenders on top of FICO8 to provide CLI/CLD as well as SL.

But I do think FICO8 has some use of "capacity" in generating scores well beyond the 850 we consider the top.  Before the term "utilization" was used by FICO, they actually called it "capacity" meaning 100%-utilization = capacity.  So if you were maxed out on utilization, you had 0 capacity, while if you PIF everything, you have 100% capacity.  Utilization is of course a big part of FICO8 scoring, but capacity itself might have some value within a particular score's range.

I bet there's some dollar value assigned to it instead of just percentages.  The reason for this is I know some VERY high overall limit folks who get dinged if their AZEO balance is lower than $300 or whatever.  Just letting $50 report is the same for them as letting $0 report on one card.  Unless FICO rounds down to $0 for people with crazy high overall capacity.

---

I'd like to see some data on the assertion on very high limit folks and what are we defining as high limit anyway?  To my knowledge nobody here even those with 500k+ in aggregate revolving CL have seen issues with rounding or anything of the sort... any non-zero balance != 0% penalty.

Possible that's mistaken but it's held for a decade or longer.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately the data points on that assertion are against the rules to link to.

But the person who posts elsewhere about it is someone I actually know in real life and I do trust their personal data point.  Then I've seen at least 2 or 3 truly anonymous indviiduals who have confirmed with their own profile the same issue.

The one person I do know has a lot of charge cards with no limit, a lot of revolvers with insane limits ($70k or more) and a total capacity of 7 figures of credit.  I've seen their 3B a few times over the past 6 months and it's ludicrous mode for sure, but hilarious to consider.  I didn't confirm their ding for a low AZEO balance on one card via a 3B though.

[NRB525]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately the data points on that assertion are against the rules to link to.

But the person who posts elsewhere about it is someone I actually know in real life and I do trust their personal data point.  Then I've seen at least 2 or 3 truly anonymous indviiduals who have confirmed with their own profile the same issue.

The one person I do know has a lot of charge cards with no limit, a lot of revolvers with insane limits ($70k or more) and a total capacity of 7 figures of credit.  I've seen their 3B a few times over the past 6 months and it's ludicrous mode for sure, but hilarious to consider.  I didn't confirm their ding for a low AZEO balance on one card via a 3B though.

---

If a rounding issue, it should scale, right? So lower limit cardholders should be able to trigger a penalty by too-low of an AZEO item?

Or is the issue that the revolvers over $50k are NPSL equivalent, so it looks like the cardholder has no revolvers?