AAoA and AoOA -- revolving only?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

TU FICO 8 score not sourced from Bank of America

---

TU FICO 8 from Synchrony (Lowe's):

[Anonymous]

TU FICO 4:

[Anonymous]

Interesting that my BCE EQ8 (Citi) reason code just states "accounts" not "revolving accounts" with the rest of the reason statement otherwise the same.

[Anonymous]

So far it sounds like the reason statement is limited to the various flavors of TU FICO 8 (Classic, BCE, Auto), TU FICO 04, and all three bureaus of FICO 9.

We don't seem to be seeing it with EQ or EX (except FICO 9).

I'd love to see if someone can give a counterexample, e.g....

FICO 8 EQ

FICO 8 EX

FICO 8 EQ BCE

FICO 98 EX

FICO 04 EQ

It seems like we have completely ruled out the possibility that it was some artifact of Bank of America's CMS.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

So far it sounds like the reason statement is limited to the various flavors of TU FICO 8 (Classic, BCE, Auto), TU FICO 04, and all three bureaus of FICO 9.

We don't seem to be seeing it with EQ or EX (except FICO 9).

I'd love to see if someone can give a counterexample, e.g....

FICO 8 EQ

FICO 8 EX

FICO 8 EQ BCE

FICO 98 EX

FICO 04 EQ

It seems like we have completely ruled out the possibility that it was some artifact of Bank of America's CMS.

---

Agreed.

[Revelate]

This:

FICO® Scores consider the age of a person's oldest revolving account and/or the average age of revolving accounts. Your score was impacted by the relatively low age of your oldest revolving account and/or the average age of your revolving accounts.

Is fluff.

I call BS on the theory that AAOA is only revolving; there is demonstrated proof via reason codes already that it is counted separately and concrete datapoints score wise as well.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

I call BS on the theory that AAOA is only revolving; there is demonstrated proof via reason codes already that it is counted separately and concrete datapoints score wise as well.

---

Perhaps I'm reading what you wrote above incorrectly.  It sounds like you're saying that it's BS that only revolvers are considered, but then suggest that they obviously are considered separately based on what we know. 

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Revelate wrote:
This:

FICO® Scores consider the age of a person's oldest revolving account and/or the average age of revolving accounts. Your score was impacted by the relatively low age of your oldest revolving account and/or the average age of your revolving accounts.

Is fluff.

I call BS on the theory that AAOA is only revolving; there is demonstrated proof via reason codes already that it is counted separately and concrete datapoints score wise as well.

---

I didn't interpret @Anonymous 's thread as espousing a theory that installment accounts aren't counted in average age of accounts. I just interpreted it as a quest for understanding why in some scoring models there is a negative reason code referencing the age of "revolving and/or open-ended" accounts rather than the broader "credit" accounts.

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

---

I didn't interpret @Anonymous 's thread as espousing a theory that installment accounts aren't counted in average age of accounts. I just interpreted it as a quest for understanding why in some scoring models there is a negative reason code referencing the age of "revolving and/or open-ended" accounts rather than the broader "credit" accounts.

---

Indeed you are right, SouthJ.  This is why I added this paragraph in the top post:

Naturally that doesn't mean that FICO doesn't also look at AAoA and AoOA as just accounts in general (including loans). Indeed I have also seen a different reason statement that uses the general language that implicitly includes all account types in its age calculation.

Thus there is no question that all FICO models have scoring factors that look at AAoA and AoOA with loans, credit cards, etc. all treated the same.  The question is whether some models might in addition to that also look at AAoA and AoOA purely in terms of revolving accounts, as those revolving-specific negative reason statements seem to imply.

I have some scores with both the revolving-specific statement and the more general statement listed as separate problems hurting my score.

[Revelate]

There were a couple of mentions of AAOA somehow being split (and it's in the awkward thread title too), and I wanted to concretely state that it is not.  All OC tradeline accounts are considered unless there's some discount of the tradeline like dispute or FICO 8 AU abuse algorithm.

There's separate length of revolving and installment tradelines independent of each other; the takeaways here as I see it are:

1) These apply to Classic scorecards not just industry options

2) AOOA might be different than what anyone thought, not a real way to test that as there's no reason codes for total oldest account TBH other than perhaps otherwise unexplained scoreshifts at the beginning of the month... the EX service might be able to tease that out.

AAOA is still the same as we understood it, that random BOFA verbiage is just fluff, though I would conjecture on Birdman's data and say that the typical Short Credit History now is explicitly AAOA and not AOOA at all.