Achieving 850 CS

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

Highest Fico 8 score I've seen posted (not mine) with AoYA below 12 months is 850. That individual had a AoOA above 20 years, AAoA over 8 years and more than 30 credit cards.

---

TT, just curious why above you mention the number of CCs this person has.  The other 2 factors (AoOA, AAoA) that you mentioned in the sentence relate directly to credit score, but number of credit cards (at least over 2, say) I don't think is really relevant to score.  Or is it?  Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I felt like it must matter if you mentioned it along side those other score related factors?

[Thomas_Thumb]

A person with 30 open credit card accounts all over 1 year age opening a new account has already received any penalty associated with "too many revolving accounts". Also, if the new account penalty is influenced by new open revolvers/total open revolvers, then all those revolvers may mute the new account impact. Certainly the impact of a new account on AAoA will be minimal.

Undoubetedly there are multiple scorecards with 850 potential. A profile that is well aged, thick and has a broad credit mix will likely be assigned the top scorecard with the greatest potential buffer

[Anonymous]

---

wrote:

---

---

TT, just curious why above you mention the number of CCs this person has.  The other 2 factors (AoOA, AAoA) that you mentioned in the sentence relate directly to credit score, but number of credit cards (at least over 2, say) I don't think is really relevant to score.  Or is it?  Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I felt like it must matter if you mentioned it along side those other score related factors?

---

One of the things that few people talk about on these topics is how much FICO relies on percentages and not whole numbers.  I don't have the profile to test it and I don't really have anyone who has a massively built profile who monitors FICO8 scores (everyone I know with > 800 just doesn't care about the scores much other than checking in from time to time), but I feel pretty strongly that talking about integers versus percentages with ANYTHING to do with FICO doesn't hold much water -- except in terms of inquiries where there's no percentage variable.

So opening a new account might be thresholded as a percentage versus an integer.  I could envision a FICO calculation where they track young accounts as a percentage to non-young account versus just "if young accounts > 1 then scorecard to young account bucket" and instead it might be "if young accounts > 3% of total accounts then scorecard to young account bucket".

Of course, I have no proof or evidence or a single data point discussing this, but as TT mentioned, his (?) shared DP from someone else might fit this scenario.  Let's say someone has 29 total accounts and adds a new one.  1/29 = 3.4% of accounts are under 12 months.  But another person has 34 total accounts and adds a new one.  1/34 = 2.9% of accounts are under 12 months.

Might FICO look at the percentage to decide if the young account is an issue?

And if FICO looks at these percentages, I also wonder if there might be a young months/total months percentage more than young account numbers/total account numbers percentage.  Or something even more complicated than that such as (average age of young accounts)/(average age of total accounts) percentage.

[Kree]

This might be something testable by younger forum members. Student loans can be weird and will often be broken into 2 seperate loans per semester.  So someone doing a 4+1 program fully financed could have 20 accounts.  someone doing a master right after their bachelors could have 30 accounts without even counting credit cards and auto loans and as an added bonus will have a fairly low AoOA and AAoA

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

---

So opening a new account might be thresholded as a percentage versus an integer.

---

I have always suggested that this was likely.  It's what the LexisNexis model does, and it is the most straightforward interpretation of this wording from FICO:

Your FICO® Scores look at how many new accounts you have by type of account. They also may look at how many of your accounts are new accounts.

https://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/New-Credit.aspx

Curiously, in the LN model, the ratio used is the Number of New Accounts (closed or open) divided by the Number of Open Accounts.  Because the numerator can be greater than the denominator, LN includes breakpoints where the ratio is > 101%

[Anonymous]

---

wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

---

So opening a new account might be thresholded as a percentage versus an integer.

---

I have always suggested that this was likely.  It's what the LexisNexis model does, and it is the most straightforward interpretation of this wording from FICO:

Your FICO® Scores look at how many new accounts you have by type of account. They also may look at how many of your accounts are new accounts.

https://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/New-Credit.aspx

Curiously, in the LN model, the ratio used is the Number of New Accounts (closed or open) divided by the Number of Open Accounts.  Because the numerator can be greater than the denominator, LN includes breakpoints where the ratio is > 101%

---

Yep, the LN model is what made me consider it, actually.  Plus I have so many data points on credit profiles I've gone through that I really have a gut feeling that FICO loves their percentages and disregards almost all integer values.  Same the mysterious percentage of revolvers to loans (open? closed? AU?).

[Revelate]

Speaking as someone who has a bunch of open accounts:

30 total

20 open

18 revolvers of various types

2 installment

That new account penalty existed with even just one tradeline under the 1 year mark on FICO 2/8/9 on the non-derogatory scorecards.  FICO 04 models are still complaining about it over a year, and either it's integer based (or more specifically, you have one, penalty!) or the percentage is really really small as I have a lot more accounts than the "average" consumer; 5% or smaller even.  Seems unlikely to me.

When I was in the derogatory scorecards I could beat my credit like a rented mule when it came to new accounts and unless I went over an AAOA boundary it just didn't matter for reference: AOYA doesn't appear to be a factor on the dirty scorecards on FICO 8 or FICO 04 certainly.

[Anonymous]

20 open so 1 young account could be 5%.  That's a high percentage still!  Do you have any future apps in mind after that youngest goes to 24 months?  Wonder if 1/21 (4.8%) might be different.  Or if 1/30 (3.3%) might ding but 1/34 (2.9%) might not.

[Revelate]

---

wrote:

20 open so 1 young account could be 5%.  That's a high percentage still!  Do you have any future apps in mind after that youngest goes to 24 months?  Wonder if 1/21 (4.8%) might be different.  Or if 1/30 (3.3%) might ding but 1/34 (2.9%) might not.

---

Yeah when I re-read it I realized it could be 5% exactly and posted it, I doubt it's that but it's possible.  If I had to guess in the pretty scorecards, AOYA is a scorecard segmenter and as such even 1 would be enough to change your bucket: additional ones or higher percentages might change it further.

At some point I will be opening up another account: don't know where or when yet but I will get datapoints.

Remarking on the other topic in this thread, if I get to 850 OK, that's kinda cool, but it's not a goal.  Life > credit.

[Anonymous]

850 isn't in the cards for me, ever.  SUB options based on my forecasts show the possibility of gaining anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more in the til over 25 years, assuming 7% returns on invested SUB.  That would be stupid for me to ignore.

Of course, the entire SUB perk might go away, but until it does, I'm going to work through whatever I can legitimately and by the book.  As long as others want to pay fees and interest, I'll try to be the recipient of their lifestyle choices, lol.