AMA: Dirty Scorecard, 786 EQ FICO 8, Ask Me Anything.

[Thomas_Thumb]

If aging is hypothesized as a trigger for 60 day late classification, there needs to be an indicator to validate that hypothesis. Certainly "no serious delinquencies" could be that indicator assuming no derogatories. If it is then your existing and future scores don't factor into highest score possible on a dirty scorecard because your file is currently "clean".

What remains is determining if the file was previously on a dirty scorecard. Assuming yes, when did aging of 60 day lates result in reclassification to minor delinquencies? If you have reports from before/after 60 day lates aged to 2 years and 5 years do they list positives? Is there any mention of no serious delinquency?  Establishing an aging timeframe, if one exists, is certainly worth answering.

I realize that Fico's official list of reason statements speaks strictly to things negatively affecting score. Some consider positive comments as strictly "fluff". I typically look at when negatives fall off or appear on a report. Even so, "no serious delinquency" is definitive. The issue is what to conclude if that statement is missing.

[BallBounces]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

What remains is determining if you were previously on a dirty scorecard and if so when aging of 60 day lates resulting in reclassification to minor delinquencies. If you have reports from before/after 60 day lates aged to 2 years and 5 years do they list positives? Is there any mention of no serious delinquency?  Establishing an aging timeframe, if one exists, is certainly worth answering.

---

Right, and that's what I probably do not have.   I don't think I can show reports at the 2 or 5 year marks that include comments.  I will look at my notes.

One other thing unsaid, my prior reports would have had plenty more 60 day lates, it's just that two remain.  They also would show a 90 day late , but that is at least a couple years ago.

Ultimately I do not think I can produce the comments you want at thr 5 year or two year intervals, and we may never know.

[BallBounces]

In April of 2024: 

You have a serious delinquency (60 days past due or greater) or derogatory indicator on your credit report.

But from October 2024 for example:  Note that the definition of "Serious Delinquency" says 90 days or greater! 

There is no evidence of a serious delinquency (90 days past due or greater) or derogatory indicator on your credit report.

I am beginning to think that the definition of a serious delinquency might in fact change around 5 years...  which would be between April and October 2024.  Unfortunately that is the best I can do.

[Patient957]

@BallBounces 

When was your youngest revolving account opened?

[BallBounces]

---

@Patient957 wrote:

@BallBounces 

When was your youngest revolving account opened?

---

12 months ago. 

 

[Thomas_Thumb]

Thanks for checking. Those Fico statements that flip flop specifying serious delinquency starting at 60 day late and then at 90 day late are confusing. The presence of your now aged off 90 day late certainly impedes any attempt to pinpoint a 60 day reclassification timeline.

FWIW - I have looked at countless Fico slides over the years and identified a couple key words they use to warn the observer BS is being presented. The key words are: "Example" and "Illustration" which identify the graph being shown as fictious. Such data is often misleading. A number of these type of slides are posted in the primer thread.

The Fico slides I view as trustworthy (Scorecard segmentation, DeDupe/Buffer timelines, scoring category pie chart and many Fico score histograms) don't include such warning designators.

[Patient957]

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

@Patient957 wrote:

@BallBounces 

When was your youngest revolving account opened?

---

12 months ago. 

 

---

And did you get points bump when it hit 12 months?  If so, how much?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Patient957 wrote:

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

@Patient957 wrote:

@BallBounces 

When was your youngest revolving account opened?

---

12 months ago. 

 

---

And did you get points bump when it hit 12 months?  If so, how much?

---

His other thread on AoYA essentially states no bump on 3/1 or 3/10 (actual 12 month date). Refer to post 10. The lack of a bump in score is more in-line with dirty scorecard behavior.

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/Upcoming-AoYA-observation-opportunity-or...

[BallBounces]

---

@Patient957 wrote:

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

@Patient957 wrote:

@BallBounces 

When was your youngest revolving account opened?

---

12 months ago. 

 

---

And did you get points bump when it hit 12 months?  If so, how much?

---

I had another thread on that. No score change.  Which I agree is ... curious and had me assumed to be o n a dirty scorecard.

[Patient957]

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

@Patient957 wrote:

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

@Patient957 wrote:

@BallBounces 

When was your youngest revolving account opened?

---

12 months ago. 

 

---

And did you get points bump when it hit 12 months?  If so, how much?

---

I had another thread on that. No score change.  Which I agree is ... curious and had me assumed to be o n a dirty scorecard.

---

I think that is essentially confirmatory of a dirty scorecard, or at least a very strong indication.