@Anonymous wrote:
@DaveSignal wrote:
@marty56 wrote:As a formula, it just crunches data so I would look at the input data. Since it's based on probability and statistics, it's output may not predict the correct result but it is consistent.
There never could be a perfect scoring formula. Someone will always be given too much credit so to speak or not enough.
FICO doesn't always correctly interpret the input data. Slight changes that result from disputes (such as date reported on a charge-off) that would have no effect on the decision of a human reading the report can cause drastic fluctuations in a FICO score.
Don't kid yourself. The date of a CO is always going to affect how a human reads your report.
Surely you would be more forgiving of someone who had a CO 6 years ago compared to someone who have one 6 months ago -- so would I, and so does the Fico formulas.
You misinterpreted what I said. The CO is for the same date. The date didn't change. It shows in the history as CO at the same time as before. Only now it was just verified and updated as a valid charge off on the current date as result of the dispute.... but the CO date has not changed. Therefore a human would see a CO 6 years ago, however it is written. But FICO would see a CO within the last month. FICO doesn't always calculate like this. Only sometimes, for some accounts.... all of which a human would read the same way (CO 6 years ago). Something throws off the scoring system.
EX:694 TU:744 EQ:777
@DaveSignal wrote:You misinterpreted what I said. The CO is for the same date. The date didn't change. It shows in the history as CO at the same time as before. Only now it was just verified and updated as a valid charge off on the current date as result of the dispute.... but the CO date has not changed. Therefore a human would see a CO 6 years ago, however it is written. But FICO would see a CO within the last month. FICO doesn't always calculate like this. Only sometimes, for some accounts.... all of which a human would read the same way (CO 6 years ago). Something throws off the scoring system.
There are two dates associated with any negative item: Date of First Delinquency (DOFD) and Date of Last Activity (DOLA).
DOFD is generally accepted as the important date from a FICO scoring perspective. DOLA has less, if any, impact on how a negative item is scored as I understand it. Disputes do strange things to scoring all on their own, but not because of a change to DOLA I believe. Robert or another individual can certainly give a much better analysis on that than I can.
As illecs suggested, there was probably some other change in the report which accounted for the score disparity; however, the OP is correct: FICO is, and is supposed to be, a mystery in many respects. Whether it should be or not is a different issue.
