@Anonymous wrote:I know that TT on some scoring models has determined that a negative reason code can exist related to AoYA for as long as 5 years. Kind of crazy when you think about it, although I'd be shocked if the penalty associated with that reason code was worth more than a couple of points.
I do find it a bit odd that AoYA only matters scoring wise on clean scorecards. I would think someone on a dirty scorecard that has opened an account recently would still represent elevated risk (relative to not opening one) the same way it would for an individual on a clean scorecard.
You may be right on FICO 9, and also on FICO 8 BC.
It hasn't been the case on FICO 8 Classic AFAIK from my own data and I've conclusively demonstrated it doesn't exist in FICO 04.
Interestingly enough this whole analysis might shed some light into the AU score too as there's an analogous entry for length of installment history but I don't know if the revolving one is there. I lost some of my reports from when I was briefly totally clean but at some point I'll see if I can try to look into that.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
What does profile specific mean? It means it depends on the scorecard. That’s what differentiates profiles other than whether they’re revolver only or installment only, as far as we know.Yes, but there are factors outside of scorecard segmentation that can influence how 2 different profiles in the same scorecard may react based on CR data. One example that comes to mind that's been theorized is that the presence of a recent inquiry (verses having none recent) may result in a signal strength change on that profile for different pieces of scoring criteria.
Well that's been true with or without inquiries, and with both 60D lates, collections, and tax liens.
I'm absolutely confident in saying AOYA does not exist in the derogatory scorecards for FICO 8 Classic and FICO 04: I didn't have good access to EX FICO 2 when clean to be fair, but I have for EQ FICO 5 too, just TU brings this home most concretely because no CFA and no inquiries ever land there and I can optimize accounts with balances concretely.
And actually it might not exist in some of the industry options either, didn't see this before but from May and an account opened literally two weeks prior (so technically 1 month prior) and a Citi DC revolver at that so none of this installment loan not counting on clean files that we're seeing:
TU FICO 04 Classic
- 1. You have a serious delinquency (60 days past due or greater) or derogatory indicator on your credit report.
- 2. You recently missed a payment or had a derogatory indicator reported on your credit report.
- 3. You have a short credit history
The reason code, if it existed, would show up there: but once you get pretty enough that you have no inquiries and no accounts with balances when we're talking file optimization this is what's left. At some point recently missed goes away, I wonder if I'll hit two reason codes. Note no reason codes there for installment loan ratios for TU 04 at least in my scorecard, passing strange it's not in the FICO 8 AU on the 60D late scorecard though, have to go back to my old thread but pretty sure I saw movement in FICO 8 AU.
FICO 8 AU even:
- 1. You have a serious delinquency (60 days past due or greater) or derogatory indicator on your credit report.
- 2. You have a short credit history.
- 3. You recently missed a payment or had a derogatory indicator reported on your credit report.
Same 3 in different order, again doesn't have a 4th.
Where this diverges is FICO 8 BC:
- 1. You have a serious delinquency (60 days past due or greater) or derogatory indicator on your credit report.
- 2. You recently missed a payment or had a derogatory indicator reported on your credit report.
- 3. You have a short credit history.
- 4. You have not established a long revolving and/or open-ended account credit history.
There's our newly found AOYA friend.
And just in case people think I'm making conjectures or doctoring, pics cause it did happen. Apologies for being grumpy.
