Basic question about new FICO vs. old FICO

[corkyduckfan]

Anyone that know the answer, I would certainly appreciate it.  When we first heard about the new FICO models, I remember some contributors and moderators mention some of the differences.  I am going off of memory here.  I seem to remember differences in piggybacking not being allowed and that old baddies that are close to falling off that are paid not hurting your score as much on the new model.  Somebody please tell me if I am remembering correctly.

[llecs]

I think that's correct. AUs are excluded if not in relations. IIRC, unpaid CAs of under $100 are excluded too. There also seems to be an update as to how individual vs. trending strings of lates are treated.

[Anonymous]

If you're referring to the NextGen FICO model, remember that it is not yet widely used - as traditional FICO models are.

That being said, you can see some significant differences in the reason codes for FICO NextGen here.  They're compared side-by-side to the reason codes for Classic FICOs.  If it's not overwhelming, it's pretty interesting. 

[AndySoCal]

The FICO08 product fact sheet refers to a single collection account being over looked if under a $100 it is not plural. But on the other hand also the score is a little harsher on mutiple lates or serious delinquences from what I have read.

[corkyduckfan]

Interesting.  On the new model, I hope that they don't freak out over old charge offs and paid lates. I have had nothing derogatory in 5.5 to 6 years.  I have a few things that will fall off in the next year or so.  I have nothing unpaid though.

[Anonymous]

---

@llecs wrote:

I think that's correct. AUs are excluded if not in relations.

---

By this, do you mean related to the primary card holder?

[llecs]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@llecs wrote:

I think that's correct. AUs are excluded if not in relations.

---

By this, do you mean related to the primary card holder?

---

Right. I think somehow, someway, FICO was able to exclude AUs that aren't related to eliminate piggybacking.

[Anonymous]

---

@llecs wrote:

---

---

Right. I think somehow, someway, FICO was able to exclude AUs that aren't related to eliminate piggybacking.

---

Got ya, thank you for your quick response.

Greatly Appreciated!

[llecs]

---

@llecs wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@llecs wrote:

I think that's correct. AUs are excluded if not in relations.

---

By this, do you mean related to the primary card holder?

---

Right. I think somehow, someway, FICO was able to exclude AUs that aren't related to eliminate piggybacking.

---

Scratch that....I was wrong. All AUs, even if not in relation, are factored in someway and somehow into FICO scoring.