Hi I added myself as an athorized user on a 13 year old credit card (under same last name and address) thinking it would boost my fico by boosting my aaoa which is currently only 8 months. Turns out my score didn't even change one bit, not even from the balance on it (which is 50%) ! It did affect my vantage score however. Here's some pictures from Experian.com.
@Anonymous wrote:
Looks to me like although you raised your AAoA and AoOA by adding this AU card, you also raised your UTI to 51%, the 2 probably ended up offsetting each other.
Not sure what your'e seeing. In the pictures I show that in one place it says aaoa is 11 months but in another it says 3 years and one month but my score didn't change. These pictures are all from the same report on the same day.
This is exactly what I showed that in one place it says aaoa 11 months and in another it says 3 years and one month. Also in one place it shows a balance of $15,741 with 51% utilization and in another it shows a balance of $1,806 with a 27% utilization which is correct without the AU. And my score didn't change. These pictures are all from one report. Not a comparison.
@Anonymous wrote:What you are using (on Experian) is one example of a credit monitoring system or CMS. Every CMS has a front end dashboard that summarizes what is on your report. These front-end dashboards are created by programmers who have nothing to do with the team of people at FICO who designed the actual scoring model on the back end. The creators of the CMS dashboard are programmers who work for that particular CMS (Credit Karma, Credit Check Total, myFICO Ultimate, etc.).
Therefore a CMS dashboard may say that your utilization is 0% (because it is actually 0.1%) when the back-end FICO algorithm views it as 1% -- a crucial difference since you had a true 0.000% utilization FICO would impose a substantial penalty. The dashboard says one thing but the algorithm sees something else. Likewise there can be gaps between the algorithm and a dashboard on many things: history of derogs, AAoA, Age of Oldest Account, etc.
AU accounts are a common source of disconnect between what a dashboard sees and what the FICO algorithm sees.
Now it is indeed possible that FICO 8's secret anti-abuse algorithm has flagged your AU account as one that should not be considered. But the only way to know that is for you to have scores pulled before the AU account was added and then pull fresh scores again after it.
This is my exact point it's not a comparison it's the same report. Just one's the dash and ones the actual report.
@Anonymous wrote:And as Oldman observes, if your utilization is going up between the before and after comparison of scores, then even the score comparisson won't tell you anything, since you have good things happening (much older Age of Oldest Account) and bad things happening (increased utilization) at the same time.
No because even after I added it still shows the old aaoa on the dashboard. All the pictures are AFTER adding it
@Anonymous wrote:
@moonkey1234 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Looks to me like although you raised your AAoA and AoOA by adding this AU card, you also raised your UTI to 51%, the 2 probably ended up offsetting each other.Not sure what your'e seeing. In the pictures I show that in one place it says aaoa is 11 months but in another it says 3 years and one month but my score didn't change. These pictures are all from the same report on the same day.
Forget about what the software is telling you for a second (as there are obvious discrepancies between page 1 and 2) and stick to raw data and its effects on your score.
Before adding AU :
AAoA = 8 months
AoOA = 11 months
UTI = $1,806/$6,600 = 27%
After adding AU :
AAoA = 3 year 1 month
AoOA = 13 years
UTI = $15,741/$30,600 = 51%
Is this not correct?