Number of CC's..

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

A person with an 850 would not be the ideal person to test, because of the buffer.  He might have a score of 863 dropped to 851 and we wouldn't be able to tell.  We'd tend to (wrongly) conclude, when his score did not change (850 to 850), that the factor in question had no effect. 

Much better IMO would your suggestion of a person who was close to 850 but not quite there.

---

Good call regarding the buffer.  A score below 850 would definitely be more ideal.  I was close to possessing a data point on this earlier this year.  My EQ score was at 841 and then I apped for 3 accounts.  2 inquiries landed on EQ, bringing my score down to 832.  When the 3 new accounts had all reported the following month, my score dropped to 825.  Since I added multiple accounts (and inquiries) it's definitely not a clean data point.  Also, my AoYA prior to apping was 11 months; Had it been 12+ months I think it would have been a better indicator.  Perhaps my 841 score would have grown higher, say 845, had I waited another month and potentially crossed an AoYA threshold at 12 months?

Also, for a super clean data point here I think it would be best if the inquiry that came from the new account landed on a different bureau than the one where the score is being tested.  That way, it's ONLY the new account (AoYA drop) that is adversely impacting score, not the inquiry also.  I mean, it is pretty simple to see the impact of the inquiry on its own since that drop comes about a month (on average) prior to the new account, but that also gives another month for different things to happen/age with the account IMO giving a less concrete data point.

[Anonymous]

I really wonder if FICO cares about the 12-month AAoA line at all.  The more I read their patents and look at consumer data that people have provided to me, the more I wonder if they're more suited to a 6-month and 24-month dilineation and anything between that might be unscoreable.

Others will probably have data points on it -- I have an 11 year old closed account (closed for 9 years) that throws off my AAoA data points.

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder if FICO cares about the 12-month AAoA line at all.  The more I read their patents and look at consumer data that people have provided to me, the more I wonder if they're more suited to a 6-month and 24-month dilineation and anything between that might be unscoreable.

Others will probably have data points on it -- I have an 11 year old closed account (closed for 9 years) that throws off my AAoA data points.

---

There's a line somewhere and it might vary based on model.

1. You opened a new credit account relatively recently.

I have that pretty much everywhere on various models (FICO 98, 04, 8, 9; baseline for the first two, industry options for the second two though I don't get classic FICO 9 reason codes anymore unfortunately and FICO 8 classic reason codes kinda suck in general with their being truncated).

These are all on reports with most recent account 6 months < x < 1 year.

Did get some shifting around on TU FICO 04 on that one but whether it was from going over six months or the late passing the 2 year mark I wasn't pulling enough to know.  FICO 8 didn't hiccup anywhere.

I'm going to look again after a year on the assumption I don't open any more accounts between now and then... I never ever, on any score I have access to, had either this reason code or ever saw a non-AAOA related drop for new tradelines and that includes having been clean for more than a year when I still had my tax lien relegating me to a dirty bucket... I don't really have a lot of data to go on as a result, but hopefully can sort it out early next year as my scores simply shifted to a new plateau and I don't expect that to change between now and once these pass a year, EX is the only one not isolated for inquiries so hopefully can catch it.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm...

Did you mean:

• 6 months < x < 1 year, or
• 6 months < x <= 1 year?

Just curious!

[Anonymous]

Well, in a little over 2 weeks my AoYA will reach 6 months, so I'll see if I get any score increases at that time.  If I don't see anything within 3-4 weeks, that would tell me that AoYA does not have a 6 month break point.  This is under FICO 08, BTW.  I don't monitor the other scoring models really, aside from the TU FICO 4 score I get from my mortgage company.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder if FICO cares about the 12-month AAoA line at all.  The more I read their patents and look at consumer data that people have provided to me, the more I wonder if they're more suited to a 6-month and 24-month dilineation and anything between that might be unscoreable.

Others will probably have data points on it -- I have an 11 year old closed account (closed for 9 years) that throws off my AAoA data points.

---

There's a line somewhere and it might vary based on model.

1. You opened a new credit account relatively recently.

I have that pretty much everywhere on various models (FICO 98, 04, 8, 9; baseline for the first two, industry options for the second two though I don't get classic FICO 9 reason codes anymore unfortunately and FICO 8 classic reason codes kinda suck in general with their being truncated).

These are all on reports with most recent account 6 months < x < 1 year.

Did get some shifting around on TU FICO 04 on that one but whether it was from going over six months or the late passing the 2 year mark I wasn't pulling enough to know.  FICO 8 didn't hiccup anywhere.

I'm going to look again after a year on the assumption I don't open any more accounts between now and then... I never ever, on any score I have access to, had either this reason code or ever saw a non-AAOA related drop for new tradelines and that includes having been clean for more than a year when I still had my tax lien relegating me to a dirty bucket... I don't really have a lot of data to go on as a result, but hopefully can sort it out early next year as my scores simply shifted to a new plateau and I don't expect that to change between now and once these pass a year, EX is the only one not isolated for inquiries so hopefully can catch it.

---

^ Good point on industry option versions. They use their classic version counterpart as a base algorithm. I look at the Fico 8 Bankcard version to gain insight into how changes in CC reporting influence Classic Fico 8. Here is how my profile reacts to # cards reporting on Fico 8 without a Classic version buffer. As shown in the below table, EX is not too responsive to # cards. I saw the same thing with the EX Fico 04 model relative to its EQ and TU counterparts and with EX Fico 98 model.

My experience is the EQ Fico 04 model responds very strongly to # cards reporting balances. With Fico 8 it is more subdued and on par with TU.

*** # cards represents count reporting a balance out of 5 possible (excludes AU card which is not counted in Fico 8 for me. 8/2016 only AMEX charge reported a balance "no revolving accounts with a balance. Thus, the score drops. If only one card reports, it needs to be a credit card - AMEX charge cards are included in open accounts with balance count but are not part of recent balances on revolving accounts.  FWIW - The AU card reports a balance every month ***

Date	EQ # cards	EQ Fico 8 BC	TU # cards	TU Fico 8 BC	EX # cards	EX Fico 8 BC
07-2015	1	886	1	900	2	898
11-2015	1	886	1	900	1	900
02-2016	5	874	5	880	4	895
03-2016	2	882	2	899	2	898
07-2016	4	881	4	889	2	900
08-2016	AMEX, 0 rev	876	AMEX, 0 rev	886	AMEX, 0 rev	892
03-2017	2	887	2	899	2	900

Observed impact of 1 card reporting as a revolver (11/2015) vs 1 card reporting as a charge card (8/2016)

- triggers the negative reason statement "No recent balances on revolving accounts":

1) EQ: 886 => 876, 10 point drop

2) TU: 900 => 886, 14 point drop

3) EX: 900 => 892,  8 point drop

[Revelate]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hmmm...

Did you mean:

• 6 months < x < 1 year, or
• 6 months < x <= 1 year?

Just curious!

---

Grin, I didn't finish but I did take enough math to be explicit haha.

That said I don't plan to be trying to sort out whether it's <= 1 year, or < 1 year.... next pull will likely be at 366 days to see.

[Anonymous]

For Thomas_Thumb: thank you for sharing the chart showing various FICO score codes. Is this the complete chart? If not, would you mind sharing the rest of it or providing a link to access it online, if possible?