@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Even if it was 3 months old when it reported, it still is a "new account" and the number of accounts opened recently (and number of accounts with balances) can impact FICO score.
The only non-integer AAoA threshold that I've read about is believed to be at 7.8 years; everything else that has been reported has involved crossing whole numbers.
I've noticed that when when my accts reach 3 months old, I lose the Fico penalty for new accts. I know that it was not acct with balances as the acct reported with a zero balance, which would have helped my score, not hurt it.
I will watch this and see if I gain those points back when my average age reach 6.5 years.
That's interesting, new accounts penalty stayed in my reason codes for the full year, and they are still out there for my FICO 04 scores.
Do you have reports with reason codes to demonstrate that?
It's possible on the AAOA side: if there really is a boundary at 7.8 years (I'm still skeptical just because you can get an 850 at that threshold and there was some high scores thing floating around which isn't reference...) then there might be one at 6.5 years but I sort of think it's on whole years too frankly for all of them.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Even if it was 3 months old when it reported, it still is a "new account" and the number of accounts opened recently (and number of accounts with balances) can impact FICO score.
The only non-integer AAoA threshold that I've read about is believed to be at 7.8 years (actually it's 7 years 8 months - just under 7.7 years); everything else that has been reported has involved crossing whole numbers.
I've noticed that when when my accts reach 3 months old, I lose the Fico penalty for new accts. I know that it was not acct with balances as the acct reported with a zero balance, which would have helped my score, not hurt it.
I will watch this and see if I gain those points back when my average age reach 6.5 years.
That's interesting, new accounts penalty stayed in my reason codes for the full year, and they are still out there for my FICO 04 scores.
Do you have reports with reason codes to demonstrate that?
It's possible on the AAOA side: if there really is a boundary at 7.8 years (I'm still skeptical just because you can get an 850 at that threshold and there was some high scores thing floating around which isn't reference...) then there might be one at 6.5 years but I sort of think it's on whole years too frankly for all of them.
It's not that they are no longer considered new by Fico at 3 months, but I seem to recoup the points lost for a new acct at 3 months. It sort of like you may have too many inquiries for 24 months but they only affect your score for 6-12 months. [impact of inquiries is constant for 12 months - no lessening over time and after 12 months, the negative reason statement goes away. By definition a negative reason statement should mean the factor negatively impacts score]
^ Agree. There have been a number of posts where a poster mentioned seeing positive score movement when their most recent new account, or accounts, reached 3 months age. There have been enough reports to suggest 3 months has some significance although the reason statement may not disappears.
A similar situation exists with 30 and 60 day lates. Two years appears to be a threshold for "mild lates" where some, not all, points are regained when the most recent late ages past two years. It is important to note, reason statements associated with those lates will still be present - because the late(s) still negatively affect score.
FYI - Other credit scoring models, such as VantageScore, explicitly refer to 3 months as an important age factor. The below is an infographic from VantageScore.
