Authorized User does NOT affect ANY of the FICO scores?

[moonkey1234]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Yep.  So since there is no comparison between scores in time (drawn before the AU account appeared and after) there is no way to draw conclusions about whether FICO 8 (the back end algorithm) is considering the AU account.

The dashboard was likely just programmed to ignore all AU accounts.

---

Nevermind. Your'e right. My score on May 28th was 691 and on May 29th it was 697 with no changes other then the AU being added. The problem is I was expecting a way bigger gain but the utilization messed it up. Thanks for your input everyone! This forum really helped me alot. After I remove myself it'll show up as closed with no balance and that'll boost my aaoa. At least that's what i'm hoping.

[Anonymous]

---

@moonkey1234 wrote:

---

@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?

---

No because even after I added it still shows the old aaoa on the dashboard. All the pictures are AFTER adding it

---

If those are not the correct raw data, what are the correct ones? Again, ignore what the dashboard/software is showing you, what are the AAoA, AoOA and UTI before and after calculated based on data on your report?

[moonkey1234]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@moonkey1234 wrote:

---

@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?

---

No because even after I added it still shows the old aaoa on the dashboard. All the pictures are AFTER adding it

---

If those are not the correct raw data, what are the correct ones? Again, ignore what the dashboard/software is showing you, what are the AAoA, AoOA and UTI before and after calculated based on data on your report?

---

Yes this is the correct data bet may 28th and 29th if you ignore the dash. My score actually changed from 691 to 697 also but I didn't realize the utilization would make it such a small difference. Cool how you figured out $6600 .

[Anonymous]

UTI accounts for 30% of the score, adding a 58% card with a large limit taking you across 2 known UTI scoring thresholds would result in a pretty big hit, at least it was a small net positive.

[Anonymous]

To summarize, here are two helpful lessons learned:

(1)  Difference between what a front-end dashboard says and what the back-end scoring algorithm does.

(2)  The importance of holding all other scoring factors constant if you are trying to isolate one factor in particular and draw conclusions about it.

Best wishes....

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous
UTI accounts for 30% of the score, adding a 58% card with a large limit taking you across 2 known UTI scoring thresholds would result in a pretty big hit, at least it was a small net positive.

---

Correct.  I'd say that the loss from crossing 2 aggregate utilization thresholds (28.9%, 48.9%) as well as going to a single trade line at > 50% utilization may have harmed the OPs scores to the tune of 60 points.  If he ended up seeing a small net gain of 5-10 points, perhaps the "age of accounts" factors that were positively impacted raised his scores 65-70 points.

OP, if the person that added you as an AU is able to take their utilization down to a small amount, I'd estimate you could stand to see around a 60 point gain to your scores based on the improved utilization.